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 .
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 1-16 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 1 recites “a gaming device” in lines 4 and 5 which render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this is referring to the gaming device recited in lines 2 and 3 or a different gaming device. Claims 2-16 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machine Translation of CN Publication No. 216479907U to Fu (hereinafter “Fu”).
Concerning claim 1, Fu discloses a horizontal charging stand, which is characterized in that: a first main part, one side of which is provided with a first space for placing a gaming device; a second part, one side of which is provided with a second space for placing a gaming device; wherein, the inner side of the second space and the inner side of the first space are arranged relatively (page 2 – utility model content section paragraphs [0001]-[0007], page 3, examples 1 and 2, Figs. 1-6);
a connecting component, one end of which and the first main part are provided with a lower end of the first space side can be disassembled, the other end of the connecting component and the second main part are provided with a lower end of the second space side can be disassembled (page 2 – utility model content section paragraphs [0001]-[0007], page 3, examples 1 and 2, Figs. 1-6).
Concerning claim 2, Fu discloses is characterized in that: The connecting component comprises a first connecting bracket and a second connecting bracket, One end of the first connecting bracket and one end of the second connecting bracket can be disassembled, The other end of the first connecting bracket and the first main part are provided with the lower end of the first space side can be disassembled, The other end of the second connecting bracket and the second main part are provided with the lower end of the second space side can be disassembled (page 2 – utility model content section paragraphs [0001]-[0007], page 3, examples 1 and 2, Figs. 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of US Publication No. 2015/0273325 A1 to Fale et al. (hereinafter “Fale”).
Concerning claim 3, Fu lacks specifically disclosing, however, Fale discloses The first main part comprises at least a first bracket and a first slider, The first slider is positioned on one side of the first bracket to form the first space, One end of the first slider can move radially along the first bracket to expand the first space (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the slider mechanisms as disclosed by Fale in the system of Fu in order to make the system easier to slide in and out the console.
Concerning claim 4, Fu lacks specifically disclosing, however, Fale discloses in that: There is a first opening on one side of the first bracket, One end of the first slider is embedded into the first opening of the first bracket, and the end of the first slider can move radially within the first opening (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the slider mechanisms as disclosed by Fale in the system of Fu in order to make the system easier to slide in and out the console.
Concerning claim 9, Fu lacks specifically disclosing, however, Fale discloses in that: The second main part comprises at least a second bracket and a second slider, The second slider is positioned on one side of the second bracket to form the second space, One end of the second slider can move radially along the second bracket to expand the second space (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the slider mechanisms as disclosed by Fale in the system of Fu in order to make the system easier to slide in and out the console.
Concerning claim 10, Fu lacks specifically disclosing, however, Fale discloses in that: There is a second opening on one side of the second bracket, One end of the second slider is embedded into the second opening of the second bracket; The end of the second slider can move radially within the second opening (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the slider mechanisms as disclosed by Fale in the system of Fu in order to make the system easier to slide in and out the console.
Concerning claim 11, Fu lacks specifically disclosing, however, Fale discloses in that: There is a protruding locking strip in the middle of the inner side of the second opening, The extension part of the second slider is equipped with a locking block in coordination with the locking strip, The second slider can be movably positioned on the second bracket by the locking strip and the locking block (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the slider mechanisms as disclosed by Fale in the system of Fu in order to make the system easier to slide in and out the console.
Concerning claim 12, Fu discloses in that: A second connecting end is arranged on the inner side of the second bracket, and the second connecting end is arranged as an opening structure, The other end of the second connecting bracket and the opening structure inserted into the second connecting end, The second connecting bracket and the second connecting end of the second bracket can be disassembled (page 2 – utility model content section paragraphs [0001]-[0007], page 3, examples 1 and 2, Figs. 1-6).
Concerning claim 13, Fu discloses in that: The second space is provided with a support member with a large end and a small end, The support member is used to bear the gaming device placed in the second space (page 2 – utility model content section paragraphs [0001]-[0007], page 3, examples 1 and 2, Figs. 1-6).
Concerning claim 14, Fu discloses in that: A fixed plate extending upward is arranged on the upper surface of the second bracket, and this fixed plate is securely placed in the second space with the help of screws to hold the gaming device(page 2 – utility model content section paragraphs [0001]-[0007], page 3, examples 1 and 2, Figs. 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715