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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“206” in Fig. 2.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“the fence includes at least one of an indent or a detent to constrain the lever arm” in claim 5,
“the indent or the detent includes an aperture to receive at least a portion of the lever arm” in claim 6,
“wherein at least a portion of the lever arm is to be received by an aperture of the chassis” in claim 13,
“wherein the lug is soldered to the lid” in claim 9
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “a distal and”, which should have been “a distal end” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for covering” in claim 18.
“means for transmitting a rotational force” in claim 18.
“means for contacting the means for covering” in claim 18.
“means for restraining” in claim 18.
“means for heat conduction” in claim 19.
“means for supporting the means for covering” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recite “the fence includes at least one of an indent or a detent to constrain the lever arm”. It’s unclear how indent or a detent constrain the lever arm.
Claim 6 recites “the indent or the detent includes an aperture to receive at least a portion of the lever arm”. It’s unclear how aperture of the fence receive at least a portion of the lever arm.
Claim 13 recites “the chassis”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. In order to examine this application, examiner will assume the limitation is “a fence” instead, which is similar to claims 5-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (US 8,291,923; hereinafter “Young”).
Regarding claim 18, Young discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-8) comprising:
means for covering (canopy or umbrella for covering of Figs. 3, 4);
means for transmitting a rotational force (64 and/or 66, Fig. 5);
means for contacting the means for covering (10, Fig. 3; rod of 56, Fig. 4); and
means for restraining (60, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Young discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 18, and Young further discloses further including means for heat conduction (metal material can conduct heat; see col. 8, lns. 52-75: “…canopies can be canvas, metal, plastic, or another material…”; or housing 46 which can be aluminum).
Regarding claim 20, Young discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 18, and Young further discloses means for supporting (44, 40 and/or 58, Fig. 4) the means for covering.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 5,477,916; hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a lid assembly (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a lid (same as 40, Fig. 1);
a lug (same as 22 or 24, Fig. 1); and
a crank (same as 60, Fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the lug, the crank including:
a spine (same as 62, Fig. 1),
a jog (same as 622, Fig. 1) to apply force to the lid, and
a lever arm (same as 64, Fig. 1) extending from the spine to apply a rotational moment to the spine when pressed against a surface (top surface of 40, see from Fig. 2 to Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the lid assembly as defined in claim 1, and Lin further discloses a fence (20, Fig. 1) to cooperate with the lid.
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the lid assembly as defined in claim 4, and Lin further discloses wherein the fence includes at least one of an indent or a detent (26, 28, Figs. 1-4) to constrain the lever arm.
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the lid assembly as defined in claim 5, and Lin further discloses wherein the indent or the detent includes an aperture (aperture formed in 26, 28 as shown in Figs. 1 and 4) to receive at least a portion of the lever arm.
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the lid assembly as defined in claim 1, and Lin further discloses wherein the lug is a first lug (such as 22, Fig. 1); and further including a second lug (such as 24, Fig. 1) at an edge of the lid to further constrain the spine of the crank (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the lid assembly as defined in claim 1, and Lin further discloses wherein the lever arm extends from a distal end of the spine (64 is distal end of 62).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the lid assembly as defined in claim 1, and Lin further discloses wherein the lug includes a stamped feature of the lid (same as recess by 42, which works with 22 and 24 to receive 60; can refer to Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
electronic circuitry (PCB not shown, see col. 2, lns. 5-8);
a lid (same as 40, Fig. 1);
a torsional spring (same as 60, Fig. 1) including a spine (same as 62, Fig. 1) with a jog (same as 622, Fig. 1), the jog to apply force to the lid when rotational force is applied to the spine (col. 2, lns. 33-56); and
a lever arm (same as 64, Fig. 1) at an end of the torsional spring, the lever arm to transmit the rotational force to the spine when the lever arm is pressed against a surface (top surface of 40, see from Fig. 2 to Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the electronic device as defined in claim 11, and Lin further discloses wherein the lever arm is releasably locked to at least one of a detent or an indent (26 or 28, Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 13 as best understood, Lin discloses the electronic device as defined in claim 12, and Lin further discloses wherein at least a portion of the lever arm is to be received by an aperture (aperture formed in 26, 28 as shown in Figs. 1, 4) of a fence (20, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses the electronic device as defined in claim 11, and Lin further discloses wherein the lever arm is a first lever arm (such as left 64 in Fig. 1) on a first end of the spine (left 62), and further including a second lever arm (such as right 64 in Fig. 1) at a second end of the spine (right 62) opposite the first end.
Regarding claim 18, Lin discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
means for covering (same as 40, Fig. 1);
means for transmitting a rotational force (same as 62, Fig. 1);
means for contacting the means for covering (same as 622, Fig. 1); and
means for restraining (same as 64, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 18, and Lin further discloses means for heat conduction (same as 42, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses the apparatus as defined in claim 18, and Lin further discloses means for supporting (same as 20, Fig. 1) the means for covering.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, and further in view of Fox (US 5,184,211).
Regarding claims 2-3, Lin teaches the lid assembly as defined in claim 1. Lin does not teach a heat gasket, wherein the jog is to further cause the lid to compress the heat gasket against a die package. However, Fox teaches a heat gasket (same as 34, Figs. 1, 3), wherein a fastener (30, Fig. 1) is to further cause a lid (28, Figs. 1, 3) to compress the heat gasket against a die package (same as 16, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a heat gasket, wherein the jog (jog of Lin in claim 1) is to further cause the lid to compress the heat gasket against a die package in Lin, as taught by Fox, in order to provide seal from external dust, water, corrosive gases, etc.
Regarding claim 16, Lin teaches the electronic device as defined in claim 11. Lin does not teach a heat gasket positioned between the lid and a die package. However, Fox teaches a heat gasket (same as 34, Figs. 1, 3) positioned between a lid (28, Figs. 1, 3) and a die package (same as 16, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a heat gasket positioned between the lid and a die package in Lin, as taught by Fox, in order to provide seal from external dust, water, corrosive gases, etc.
Claims 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, and further in view of Zhai et al. (US 10,602,602; hereinafter “Zhai”).
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches the lid assembly as defined in claim 1. Lin does not teach wherein the lug is soldered to the lid. However, Zhai teaches a lug (lug on 100 surrounding spine 133 in Figs. 1-2) directly on a lid (100, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lug is directly on the lid in Lin, as taught by Zhai, in order to align the spine on the lug to prevent separation of spine.
The modified Lin above still does not teach the lug is soldered to the lid. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lug is soldered to the lid in Lin view of Zhai, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a solder to permanently connect two parts are already well known in the art, and using a solder does not provide any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 14-15, Lin teaches the electronic device as defined in claim 11, and Lin further discloses a lug (same as 22 or 24, Fig. 1) to rotationally couple the torsional spring, wherein the lug is a second lug (same as 22 or 24, Fig. 1) at or proximate the edge of the lid (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Lin does not teach the lug on the lid, wherein the lug is a first lug positioned away from an edge of the lid. However, Zhai teaches a lug (lug on 100 surrounding spine 133 in Figs. 1-2) on a lid (100, Fig. 2), wherein the lug is a first lug positioned away from an edge of the lid (center portion of 100, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lug on the lid, wherein the lug is a first lug positioned away from an edge of the lid in Lin, as taught by Zhai, in order to align the spine on the lug to prevent separation of spine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights