DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 12, 17, 20-21, and 26-27 are amended. Claims 3, 7-11, 14-16, 18-19, 22-25 and 29 are cancelled. Claims 30-45 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 20 is amended to recite the enlarged portion of the base having side-to-side compartments (fig. 21).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 30 and 42 are objected to because it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DES. 161,327 to Freudenberg in view of US D755,797 to Liu and US D1,026,511 to Lean.
Regarding claim 1, Freudenberg ‘327 discloses a watch stand assembly, comprising: a base with a bottom adapted to rest on a horizontal surface and a top with an elongated opening formed therein (fig. 1 -annotated below); a watch holder adapted to hold a wristwatch in a viewable orientation above the base, the watch holder having a top surface for supporting the wristwatch and a bottom (fig. 1 – annotated below); an elongate support arm with a first end coupled to the base and a second end rotatably coupled to the watch holder (fig. 1 – annotated); a configuration with the watch holder elevated to a position above base and held in position by the support arm (fig 1 – annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Freudenberg ‘327 discloses a support arm supporting a holder. The examiner submits that there are various support arm configurations that would allow for the Freudenberg ‘327 to be a collapsible stand assembly. It would be an obvious modification to use any number of support arm stands that would allow for a structure better suited for storage and mobility.
For example, Liu ‘797 teaches an elongate support arm with a first end rotatably coupled to a base and a second end rotatably coupled to a holder.
PNG
media_image2.png
485
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm taught in Freudenberg ‘327 with the foldable arm taught in Liu ‘797 in order to allow for a compact device for storage or transport.
Once modified, the arm would be able to fold into a first configuration with the bottom of the holder lying on the base with the support arm tucked into and residing completely within the elongated opening which is substantially covered by the holder.
PNG
media_image3.png
132
171
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner submits that the folded arm (annotated above) fits into the opening of the base taught in Freudenberg ‘327, and could be modified to closely match the size of the modified support arm received therein in terms of length, width and depth when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration.
For example, Lean ‘511 teaches a base having several compartments, including an opening, channel or slot that could support the folding arm, as now modified, noting that the arm is configured to fold and support the holder on top of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the watch stand taught in Freudenberg ‘327 with a base having the sized opening or slot taught in Lean ‘511 in order for the folded arm to be more supported and compact when supported in the modified base opening, slot or channel.
Regarding claim 5, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, where Lean ‘511 discloses wherein the elongated opening extends from back-to-front at a laterally off-center location near a side of the base, as so modified.
Regarding claim 12, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, where Lean ‘511 discloses, wherein the base includes a storage tray sufficiently dimensioned to receive small jewelry items when the watch stand assembly is in the second configuration, the storage tray being separated from the elongated opening by a dividing wall ,as so modified.
Regarding claim 13, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses wherein the storage tray has side walls sloped at an angle to facilitate removing contents from the tray with a single hand movement (see Fig. 1 of Freudenberg ‘327 and Fig. 1 of Lean ‘511).
Claim(s) 4, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DES. 161,327 to Freudenberg in view of US D755,797 to Liu and US D1,026,511 to Lean as applied to claims 1 and 12-13 above, and further in view of US 4,936,466 to Nava.
Regarding claim 4, Freudenberg ‘327 discloses the support arm, where Liu ’797 teaches a support arm that includes a lower arm rotatably coupled to the base and an upper arm rotatably coupled to the watch holder, and wherein the upper and lower arms are rotatably coupled to each other, as modified above.
Nava ‘466 teaches a support arm mounted inside the elongated opening of the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the watch stand taught in Freudenberg ‘327 (that is modified by the arms taught in Liu ‘797 and the base compartments taught in Lean ‘511) further with the support arm mounted inside the base as taught in Nava ‘466 so that the folded arm folds within the base for mor support and greater compactability.
Regarding claim 2, Freudenberg ‘327 discloses, wherein Liu ’797 discloses the lower arm is rotatably coupled to the base by a first pivot connection, the upper arm is rotatably coupled to the lower arm by a second pivot connection, and the upper and lower arms are rotatable coupled to each other by a third pivot connection (fig. 1), said pivot connections permitting relative pivoting movement between the coupled components with sufficient frictional resistance to hold the watch holder (taught in Freudenberg ‘327) in place in a selected position until an external force is applied.
Regarding claim 6, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, where Liu ‘797 discloses, further comprising a flange (fig. 8) attached to the bottom of the watch holder (taught in Freudenberg ‘327) and extending downwardly therefrom, and wherein the upper arm is rotatably coupled to the flange (fig. 8 - Liu ‘797), the flange being tucked into the elongated opening when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration (figs 4 and 5 – Liu ‘797).
Claim(s) 30, 17, 21, 31-32, 35-37 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DES. 161,327 to Freudenberg in view of US D755,797 to Liu.
Regarding claim 30, Freudenberg ‘327 discloses a watch stand assembly, comprising: a base with a bottom adapted to rest on a horizontal surface and a top; a watch holder adapted to hold a wristwatch in a viewable orientation above the base, the watch holder having a top surface for supporting the wristwatch and a bottom; a support arm with a first end coupled to the base and a second end rotatably coupled to the watch holder; and wherein a second configuration with the watch holder elevated to a position above base and held in position by the support arm.
PNG
media_image4.png
439
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Freudenberg ‘327 discloses a support arm supporting a holder. The examiner submits that there are various support arm configurations that would allow for the Freudenberg ‘327 to be a collapsible stand assembly. It would be an obvious modification to use any number of support arm stands that would allow for a structure better suited for storage and mobility.
For example, Liu ‘797 teaches an elongate support arm with a first end rotatably coupled to a base and a second end rotatably coupled to a holder, so that the stand assembly has a first configuration where the bottom of the holder is configured to lay flat against the base and the holder facing up.
PNG
media_image5.png
336
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
165
214
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm taught in Freudenberg ‘327 with the foldable arm taught in Liu ‘797 in order to allow for a compact device for storage or transport.
Regarding claim 17, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses a support arm rotatably coupled to the watch holder at a laterally off-center location. The examiner submits that the base is modified (by Liu ‘797) to be rotatably coupled to the base. Th examiner submits that the coupling between the base and arm could also be off-center, as taught with the upper coupling configuration. In fact, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to move the arm to an off-center coupling with the base to allow for space within the base during folding for other items, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 21, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, could disclose wherein the base is covered with a soft leather or fabric material. It is well known to cover jewelry and watch compartments with a pleasing fabric — noting that leather is often used. The examiner submits that it would be obvious to cover the base in any fabric material. In fact, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to include a fabric to cover the base per user preference for aesthetics and functionality, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 31, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein the base has an outer perimeter, and the bottom of the watch holder is disposed completely within the outer perimeter when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration (as modified by Liu ‘797). The arm of Liu ‘797 is configured to allow the watch holder of Freudenberg ‘327 to be disposed within the base when the modified arm is folded for storage or transport, as modified.
Regarding claim 32, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein an elongated opening is formed in the top of the base, and the support arm (of Liu ‘797) could be received into the elongated opening when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration – not the compact folding nature of the rotatable arms of Liu ‘797.
Regarding claim 35, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein the second end of the support arm is rotatably coupled to the bottom of the holder as taught in Liu ‘797, as modified.
Regarding claim 36, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein the elongated opening is in the form of a channel or slot sized to closely match the size of the support arm received therein in terms of length, width and depth when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration (as modified by Li ‘797), and the support arm is at least partially concealed in the elongated opening when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration, as modified by Liu ‘797.
Regarding claim 37, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein the support arm (taught by Liu ‘797) completely resides within the elongated opening which is substantially covered by the watch holder when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration, as modified.
Regarding claim 39, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein the support arm includes a lower arm rotatably coupled to the base by a first pivot connection (Liu ‘797 – figs 4-5), and an upper arm rotatably coupled to the watch holder by a second pivot connection (Liu ‘797), the upper and lower arms being rotatably coupled to each other in a side-by-side relationship by a third pivot connection (Liu ‘797), the upper arm and lower arm lying side-by-side would naturally lay next to each other within the elongated opening when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration, as modified.
Regarding claim 40, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein said pivot connections permit relative pivoting movement with sufficient frictional resistance to hold the arms and the watch holder in a desired position until an external force is applied, as modified by Liu ‘797.
Regarding claim 41, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, wherein, wherein the watch holder includes a padded cushion to provide a contact surface for supporting the wristwatch in a viewable orientation (fig. 1 and 3).
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DES. 161,327 to Freudenberg in view of US D755,797 to Liu, as applied to claim 30 above, further in view of US 4,936,466 to Nava.
Regarding claim 33, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses the support arm, where Liu ’797 teaches a support arm that includes a lower arm rotatably coupled to the base and an upper arm rotatably coupled to the watch holder, and wherein the upper and lower arms are rotatably coupled to each other, as modified above.
Nava ‘466 teaches a support arm mounted inside the elongated opening of the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the watch stand taught in Freudenberg ‘327 (that is modified by the arms taught in Liu ‘797) further with the support arm mounted inside the base as taught in Nava ‘466 so that the folded arm folds more within the base for more support and greater compactability.
Regarding claim 34, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, where Liu ‘797 discloses, wherein the second end of the support arm is rotatably coupled to the bottom of the watch holder by a flange (fig. 8 – Liu ‘797) extending downward from the bottom of the holder and rotatably coupled to the support arm, and wherein the support arm and the flange are received into the elongated opening and the support arm resides completely within the elongated opening when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration (figs. 4 and 5 – Liu ‘797), as modified.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DES. 161,327 to Freudenberg in view of US D755,797 to Liu as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of US D1,026,511 to Lean.
Regarding claim 38, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses a base including a storage tray dimensioned to receive small jewelry items when the watch stand assembly is in the second configuration (note the elongated size of the storage tray relative to the modified arm of Liu ‘797).
Lean ‘511 teaches a base having several compartments, including an opening, channel or slot that could support the folding arm, the storage tray being separated from the elongated opening by a dividing wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the watch stand taught in Freudenberg ‘327 with a base having divided compartments, as taught in Lean ‘511 in order to support the arm and other items in an organized and separated manner.
Claim(s) 42, 26, 27 and 43-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DES. 161,327 to Freudenberg in view of US D755,797 to Liu.
Regarding claim 42, Freudenberg ‘327 discloses a watch stand assembly, comprising: a base with a bottom adapted to rest on a horizontal surface and a top; a watch holder adapted to hold a wristwatch in a viewable orientation above the base, the watch holder having a top surface for supporting the wristwatch and a bottom; a support arm including a lower arm coupled the base and an upper arm rotatable coupled to the watch holder, and a second configuration with the watch holder elevated to a position above base and held in position by the support arm.
PNG
media_image7.png
439
655
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Freudenberg ‘327 discloses a support arm supporting a holder. The examiner submits that there are various support arm configurations that would allow for the Freudenberg ‘327 to be a collapsible stand assembly. It would be an obvious modification to use any number of support arm stands that would allow for a structure better suited for storage and mobility.
For example, Liu ‘797 teaches an elongate support arm with a first end rotatably coupled to a base and a second end rotatably coupled to a holder, the upper and lower arms being rotatably coupled to each other in a side-by-side relationship; and wherein the watch stand assembly has a first configuration with the bottom of the watch holder lying on the base.
PNG
media_image8.png
485
672
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm taught in Freudenberg ‘327 with the foldable arm taught in Liu ‘797 in order to allow for a compact device for storage or transport.
Regarding claim 26, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, where Liu ‘797 discloses wherein the upper and lower arms have a variable angular orientation relative to each other when the watch stand assembly is in the second configuration.
Regarding claim 27, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses, wherein the base includes a storage tray sufficiently dimensioned (fig. 1) to receive small jewelry items when the watch stand assembly is in the second configuration (Liu ‘797).
Regarding claim 43, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses, wherein an elongated opening is formed in the top of the base (fig. 1), and the support arm is received into and resides completely within the elongated opening when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration, the upper and lower arms lying side-by-side next to each other within the elongated opening, as modified by Liu ‘797 (figs 2-5).
Regarding claim 44, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses, wherein a flange (see Liu ‘797 – fig. 8) is attached to the bottom of the watch holder and extends downward therefrom, and the upper arm is rotatably coupled to the flange in a side-by-side relationship (fig. 8 0 Liu ‘797), the flange lying side-by-side next to the upper arm within the elongated opening when the watch stand assembly is in the first configuration (Liu ‘797 – 4-5).
Regarding claim 45, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses, wherein the upper arm is rotatably coupled to the bottom of the watch holder at a laterally off-center location (fig. 1) and the watch holder extends horizontally over the support arm and the base and is generally centered laterally over the base (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DES. 161,327 to Freudenberg in view of US D755,797 to Liu, as to claim 42 above, further in view of US D1,026,511 to Lean.
Regarding claim 28, Freudenberg ‘327, as modified, discloses the storage tray.
Lean ‘511 teaches a storage tray that is separated from an elongated opening by a dividing wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tray taught in Freudenberg ‘327 with the tray having a diving wall as taught in Lean ‘511 in order to have additional compartments for better organization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in light of the new rejections. However, the examiner will address a few of applicant’s arguments, even though the rejection is amended.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the supports art, there is always the motivation to make an arm of a support stand adjustable, collapsible, foldable, etc. for storage, transport, or user preference. It is well known and practiced to use stationary arms, foldable arms, bendable arms, collapsible arms, and/or telescoping arms. So to modify the stationary arm taught in Freudenberg ‘327 with a foldable arm like the one taught in Liu ‘797 (or any of the myriad of support arms cited by the examiner and applicant) is obvious and yields an expected and accepted result.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosure. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). In this case, the references are all drawn to supports, weather it be a support arm or a support compartment. It does not matter if the device supports a watch or an electronic device, it still supports an object relative to a surface.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the watch stand of Freudenberg ‘327 is non-analogous art to an arm used to support a device (now using Liu ‘797), it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a non-analogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174. In this case, the references are each directed to a support arm, it does not matter what the arms support, the art is the support not the intended use of the support. All the art cited by the examiner is used to support an object relative to a surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632