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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1 each element or step should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(i). The preamble and the body of the claim should also be clearly distinguished by using colon and indentation.
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.
Claim(s) Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 11487328 B1; hereinafter “Gu”) in view of Damian (US 20090201222 A1; hereinafter “Damian”).
Regarding Claim 1, Gu teaches a three-screen split display device, comprising a middle plate (10 in figure 1), side display screens (31 and 32 in figure 1), wherein the middle plate (10) is used to be fixed on the back of a laptop screen ([Column 4 Lines 13-17] ”The clamping frame 10 is configured to clamp a screen to be extended, and the circuit board 90 is provided inside the clamping frame 10 and may be connected to a host end of the screen to be extended through an external wire harness.”), one side of the side display screen (31) is hinged with one sliding plate (the display unit 31 is hinged with the first clamping portion 11 in figure 1), the sliding plate is provided at a side edge of the middle plate (the first clamping portion is provided at the edge of the middle plate 10 in figure 1), the sliding plate is used to clamp onto a side edge of the laptop screen ([Column 5 Lines 11-15] “The first clamping portion 11 and the second clamping portion 12 slide relatively along the length direction of the tie rod 13 and the tie rod 14 to adjust the clamping width of the clamping frame 10, so as to adapt to notebook computer screens of different sizes.”), the sliding plate is connected to the middle plate (the clamping portion 11 is connected to the clamping frame 10 in figure 1), and the sliding plate (11) and the side display screen (31) can be horizontally translated relative to the middle plate (the display unit 31 is hinged with the first clamping portion 11 and can be horizontally translated relative to the clamping frame 10 in figure 1).
Gu does not teach an upper display screen,
the upper display screen is hinged with the upper part of the middle plate.
However, Damian teaches an upper display screen (shown in figure 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an upper display screen into Gu, as taught by Damian. If incorporated then the upper screen could be hinged with the upper part of the middle plate. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to allow the user to have another screen for better access to the data and multiple applications… ([Paragraph 0002] of Damian).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 1, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein at least one tie rod (13 in figure 1 of Gu) is fixed in the sliding plate (11 in figure 1 of Gu), the tie rod is inserted into the middle plate (10 in figure 1 of Gu) and forms a movable connection with the middle plate ([Column 5 Lines 11-15] “The first clamping portion 11 and the second clamping portion 12 slide relatively along the length direction of the tie rod 13 and the tie rod 14 to adjust the clamping width of the clamping frame 10, so as to adapt to notebook computer screens of different sizes.”), and the degree of freedom of the sliding plate is linear motion along the length direction of the tie rod (the motion of the first clamping portion 11 is linear along the length direction of the tie rod in figure 1 of Gu).
Regarding Claim 3, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 2, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein the tie rods are divided
into an upper tie rod (13 in figure 1 of Gu) and a lower tie rod (14 in figure 1 of Gu) which are parallel to each other (tie rod 13 and tie rod 14 are parallel to each other in figure 1 of Gu), the lower tie rod (14) is provided with a rack (141 in figure 1 of Gu), a gear (15 in figure 1 of Gu) is provided in the middle plate (10), and the rack (141) of the lower tie rod engages with the gear (the rack 141 engages with the gear 15 in figure 1 of Gu); and the upper tie rod (13 in figure 7 of Gu) is provided with a wire-passing hole extending along the length direction of the upper tie rod (the tie rod 13 is provided with a hole 133 for the wire harness 41 in figure 7 of Gu), and a wire harness (41 in figure 7) connected to the side display screen passes through the wire-passing hole ([Column 6 Lines 24-30] “As shown in FIG. 5, the wire harness 41 passing through the connection 194 between the first clamping portion 11 of the clamping frame 10 and the display unit will pass through a shaft opening 311 above the display unit 31 into the display unit 31, and finally an external terminal 412 of the wire harness 41 is plugged into an internal component of the display unit 31.” Of Gu).
Regarding Claim 6, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 1, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein the sliding plates (11 and 12 in figure 1 of Gu) are provided with clamping blocks (163 and 17 in figure 2) on the sides facing the middle plate (the bayonet 163 and the baffles 17 are facing the middle plate 10 in figure 2 of Gu), and the clamping blocks are used to be buckled on left- and right-side edges of the laptop screen (the bayonet 163 and the baffles 17 are used to clamp the edges of the screen to be extended in figures 1 and 2 of Gu).
Regarding Claim 9, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 1, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein there are two side display screens (31 and 32 in figure 1 of Gu) and they are respectively provided on both sides of the middle plate (the display units 31 and 32 are provided on both sides of the clamping frame 10 in figure 1 of Gu), the sliding plates correspond to the side display screens one-to-one (the first clamping portion 11 corresponds to display unit 31 and the second clamping portion 12 corresponds to display unit 32 in figure 1 of Gu), the relative distance between the sliding plates on both sides is adjustable and the angles of the side display screens relative to the laptop screen are adjustable (the clamping portions 11 and 12 adjust the distance between the display units 31 and 32. The display units 31 and 32 are hinged and their angles are adjustable in figure 1 of Gu).
Regarding Claim 11, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 2, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein there are two side display screens (31 and 32 in figure 1 of Gu) and they are respectively provided on both sides of the middle plate (the display units 31 and 32 are provided on both sides of the clamping frame 10 in figure 1 of Gu), the sliding plates correspond to the side display screens one-to-one (the first clamping portion 11 corresponds to display unit 31 and the second clamping portion 12 corresponds to display unit 32 in figure 1 of Gu), the relative distance between the sliding plates on both sides is adjustable and the angles of the side display screens relative to the laptop screen are adjustable (the clamping portions 11 and 12 adjust the distance between the display units 31 and 32. The display units 31 and 32 are hinged and their angles are adjustable in figure 1 of Gu).
Regarding Claim 12, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 3, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein there are two side display screens (31 and 32 in figure 1 of Gu) and they are respectively provided on both sides of the middle plate (the display units 31 and 32 are provided on both sides of the clamping frame 10 in figure 1 of Gu), the sliding plates correspond to the side display screens one-to-one (the first clamping portion 11 corresponds to display unit 31 and the second clamping portion 12 corresponds to display unit 32 in figure 1 of Gu), the relative distance between the sliding plates on both sides is adjustable and the angles of the side display screens relative to the laptop screen are adjustable (the clamping portions 11 and 12 adjust the distance between the display units 31 and 32. The display units 31 and 32 are hinged and their angles are adjustable in figure 1 of Gu).
Regarding Claim 15, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 6, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein there are two side display screens (31 and 32 in figure 1 of Gu) and they are respectively provided on both sides of the middle plate (the display units 31 and 32 are provided on both sides of the clamping frame 10 in figure 1 of Gu), the sliding plates correspond to the side display screens one-to-one (the first clamping portion 11 corresponds to display unit 31 and the second clamping portion 12 corresponds to display unit 32 in figure 1 of Gu), the relative distance between the sliding plates on both sides is adjustable and the angles of the side display screens relative to the laptop screen are adjustable (the clamping portions 11 and 12 adjust the distance between the display units 31 and 32. The display units 31 and 32 are hinged and their angles are adjustable in figure 1 of Gu).
Claim(s) Claims 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 11487328 B1; hereinafter “Gu”) in view of Damian (US 20090201222 A1; hereinafter “Damian”) and further in view of Sall (US 6859219 B1; hereinafter “Sall”).
Regarding Claim 4, Gu in view of Damian teach the three-screen split display device of claim 1, Gu in view of Damian further teach wherein a hinge shaft between the
upper display screen (Shown in figure 1 of Damian above).
Gu in view of Damian do not teach the upper part of the middle plate is provided with a through hole, and a wire harness connected to the upper display screen passes through the through hole.
However, Sall teaches the upper part of the middle plate (112 in figure 4A) is provided with a through hole (410 in figure 4A), and a wire harness (410 in figure 4A) connected to the upper display screen (108 in figure 4A) passes through the through hole (the connector 410 passes through into secondary display device 108 in figure 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the upper part of the middle plate is provided with a through hole, and a wire harness connected to the upper display screen passes through the through hole into Gu, as taught by Sall. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to conveniently connect the upper display screen to the main screen…([Column 3 Lines 16-34] of Sall).
Regarding Claim 13, Gu in view of Damian and Sall teach the three-screen split display device of claim 4, Gu in view of Damian and Sall further teach wherein there are two side display screens (31 and 32 in figure 1 of Gu) and they are respectively provided on both sides of the middle plate (the display units 31 and 32 are provided on both sides of the clamping frame 10 in figure 1 of Gu), the sliding plates correspond to the side display screens one-to-one (the first clamping portion 11 corresponds to display unit 31 and the second clamping portion 12 corresponds to display unit 32 in figure 1 of Gu), the relative distance between the sliding plates on both sides is adjustable and the angles of the side display screens relative to the laptop screen are adjustable (the clamping portions 11 and 12 adjust the distance between the display units 31 and 32. The display units 31 and 32 are hinged and their angles are adjustable in figure 1 of Gu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 10, 14, and 16-17 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.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the three-screen split display device of claim 5, in particular, wherein when the screen split
display device is folded, the sliding plates fit against side edges of the middle plate, the side display screens are rotated and retracted in front of the middle plate, and the upper display screen is rotated and retracted behind the middle plate.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the three-screen split display device of claim 7, in particular, wherein the clamping block
comprises an insertion rod and a top cap, the inner end of the insertion rod is inserted into a side of the sliding plate to form a fixation, the top cap is detachably sleeved on the outer end of the insertion rod, and the side walls of one same top cap have at least two different thicknesses.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the three-screen split display device of claim 8, in particular, wherein magnets are provided in the sliding plates, and when the screen split display device is folded, the magnets are used to fix the retracted side display screens and upper display screen through magnetic attraction.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the three-screen split display device of claim 10, in particular, wherein a telescopic support leg
that can be unfolded and folded rotatably is provided on the back of the middle plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MICHAEL TALBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-4673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 L 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.
/DAKOTA M TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841