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 § 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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1).
Consider claim 1, Carnevali discloses a tablet case (read as protective case 18, figure 3, par [0033]), comprising:
a body including a back wall and a plurality of a side walls (read as the body of 18 with its back plate/wall and side walls as shown in figure 3, par [0035]), wherein the back wall includes a front side and a back side (read as the front side/surface and rear side/surface of the back plate/wall, figure 3, par [0035]), and wherein the front side of the back wall and the plurality of side walls define an opening in which a tablet is configured to be securely housed (read as the device/tablet 12 housed within the opening of the protective case 18 as shown in figures 1-3, par [0033]-[0035]; and
a stand (read as stand shown in figure 3, par [0035]) comprising:
a base rotatably coupled to the back side of the back wall about a first axis (read as base member 24 coupled to the back surface/side of the back plate/wall and is rotatable (arrows R as first axis) about case 18 between the portrait configuration (shown) and landscape configuration (FIG. 4), par [0035]); and
one or more legs hingedly coupled to the base and configured to rotate about a second axis between a closed position, a first extended position, and a second extended position, wherein the one or more legs are configured to be nested with the base in a collapsed configuration when the one or more legs are in the closed position, wherein the one or more legs are configured to support the body in a portrait configuration when the one or more legs are in the first extended position, and wherein the one or more legs are configured to support the body in a landscape configuration when the one or more legs are in the second extended position (read as stand 22 with legs is swiveled (i.e. hinge), or rotated or pivoted away (arrow 50 as second axis) from stowed position against case 18 into the deployed position within a range of deployment angles 56 that permit case 18 and device 12 therein to be supported in a plurality of different fixed angled arrangements 25 relative to external surface S, and base member 24 is rotatable (arrows R as first axis) about case 18 between the portrait configuration and landscape configuration (FIG. 4); specifically, see closed/stowed position (nested with base in a collapsed configuration) as shown in figure 5, portrait configuration (i.e. first extended position) as shown in figure 3, and landscape configuration (i.e. second extended position) as shown in figure 4, par [0035]-[0038]).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Carnevali discloses wherein the one or more legs of the stand has an even-sided polygonal shape with a proximal side being hingedly coupled to the base and an opposing distal side configured to securely engage a surface in the portrait configuration and the landscape configuration (read as both ends of the legs of rectangular stand 22, with one end hingedly coupled to the base member 24, and another end securely engages with surface S in the portrait configuration and landscape configuration, see figures 3 and 4, par [0035]-[0038]).
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Carnevali discloses wherein the first extended position of the one or more legs corresponds with a different degree-of-rotation about the second axis than that of the second extended position (read as the different deployment angles 56 based on the portrait configuration and landscape configuration, figures 3 and 4, par [0035]-[0038]).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Carnevali discloses wherein the base of the stand is configured to rotate ninety degrees relative to the body to transition between the portrait configuration and the landscape configuration (read as Base member 24 is rotatable (arrows R) about case 18 between the portrait configuration (figure 3) and landscape configuration (FIG. 4), and the angle change is nineth degrees, figures 3 and 4, par [0035]-[0038]).
Consider claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Carnevali discloses a hand strap coupled to the base of the stand (read as hand-strap 20, figure 3, par [0035]-[0038]).
Consider claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, Carnevali discloses wherein, to prevent the one or more legs from interfering with access to the hand strap: the one or more legs are hingedly coupled to an edge of the base; the hand strap is spaced apart from the edge; and the one or more legs extends away from the hand strap in the first extended position and the second extended position (read as the legs of stand 22 hingedly coupled to the edge of base 24, and the hand-strap 20 is spaced apart from the edge as shown in figure 3, and the legs of stand 22 extends away from the hand strap in the first extended position (portrait configuration in figure 3) and second extended position (landscape configuration in figure 4), par [0035]-[0038]).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1) in view of Yang (US 20230175636 A1).
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Carnevali discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein each of the one or more legs and the base has a polygonal shape to enable the base to nest with the one or more legs.
Nonetheless, Yang discloses a stand structure for tablet, which the application unit 201 is a frame 40 (leg), one end of the frame 40 is pivotally (0 degree to more than 90 degrees and including 90 degrees) installed at side surrounding the disk 20 (base), the frame 40 is of polygonal shape to enable the disk 20 to nest with frame 40 as shown in figures 1, 2 and 8-9, par [0038]-[0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the teachings of Carnevali to modify the case of Carnevali with Yang’s compact stand design to minimize interference with user’s hand.
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Carnevali, as modified by Yang, discloses wherein, in the collapsed configuration, the one or more legs are configured to surround the base such that the base is nested in the one or more legs (read as one end of the frame 40 is pivotally installed at side surrounding the disk 20 (base), the frame 40 is of polygonal shape to enable the disk 20 to nest with frame 40 as shown in figures 1, 2 and 9, par [0038]-[0041] of Yang).
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Carnevali discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first axis about which the base of the stand rotates relative to the body is perpendicular to the second axis about which the one or more legs rotate relative to the base
Nonetheless, Yang discloses a stand structure for tablet, which the application unit 201 is a frame 40 (leg), one end of the frame 40 is pivotally (0 degree to more than 90 degrees and including 90 degrees) installed at side surrounding the disk 20 (base), the frame 40 is of polygonal shape to enable the disk 20 to nest with frame 40 as shown in figures 1, 2 and 8-9, par [0038]-[0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the teachings of Carnevali to modify the case of Carnevali with Yang’s pivotal stand design with wide degrees to provide a more enhanced performance.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1) in view of Yang (US 20230175636 A1), in further view of Happer (US 20250175550 A1).
Consider claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, Carnevali, as modified by Yang, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the polygonal shape is a hexagon.
Nonetheless, Happer discloses a stand for a mobile device, which the stand is hexagonal shape, par [0031] and [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Happer into the teachings of Carnevali, which modified by Yang, to modify the stand with Happer’s hexagonal stand design as it is just a matter of design choice (see par [0036] of Happer).
Claims 11-13, 15-19, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1).
Consider claim 11, Drakos discloses a stand for a mobile device (read as an electronic device stand, figures 1, 2A, 2B and 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056], the stand comprising:
a base configured to be adjustably coupled to a back side of the mobile device (read as the tongue element 214 and the plate it is on and formed on the supporting assembly 210, figures 2A and 2B, par [0021]-[0026]);
a leg having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end is hingedly coupled to the base and configured to rotate about a first axis (read as arm element 204 has a proximal end 206 and a distal end 208, proximal end 206 is pivotally (first axis) coupled to a supporting assembly 210, figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]);
a foot hingedly coupled to the distal end of the leg and configured to rotate about a second axis (read as base 102/202 coupled to the distal end of the arm 104/204 and configured to rotate about a second axis as shown in figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]);
wherein the leg is configured to rotate about the first axis and the foot is configured to rotate about the second axis to transition the stand between a collapsed configuration, a portrait configuration, and a landscape configuration, and wherein the base, the leg, and the foot are configured to nest together in the collapsed configuration (read as wherein the arm 104 rotates on first axis and the base 102 rotates on the second axis to transition the stand between a collapsed configuration (see figure 5), a portrait configuration (see figure 1), and a landscape configuration (see figures 2A and 2B), and the tongue element 214 of supporting assembly 210, the arm 104/204 and base 102/202 are nest together in the collapsed configuration (see figure 5), par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
However, Drakos disclose the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose a ring-grip configuration.
Nonetheless, Carnevali discloses protective case 18 with stand for tablet, comprising stand 22 with legs is swiveled (i.e. hinge), or rotated or pivoted away (arrow 50 as second axis) from stowed position against case 18 into the deployed position within a range of deployment angles 56 that permit case 18 and device 12 therein to be supported in a plurality of different fixed angled arrangements 25 relative to external surface S, and base member 24 is rotatable (arrows R as first axis) about case 18 between the portrait configuration and landscape configuration (FIG. 4); specifically, see closed/stowed position (nested with base in a collapsed configuration) as shown in figure 5, see a ring-grip configuration using the hand-strap 20 (figures 3-5), portrait configuration (i.e. first extended position) as shown in figure 3, and landscape configuration (i.e. second extended position) as shown in figure 4, par [0035]-[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Carnevali into the teachings of Drakos to modify the stand with Drakos’s ring-grip configuration design to allow the securely hold the tablet.
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the foot has a shape that matches with that of the base to enable the foot to nest with the base in the collapsed configuration (read as the base 102 has a shape that matches the tongue element 214 of the supporting assembly 210 to enable next/collapsed configuration as shown in figure 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein each of the base and the foot has a polygonal shape (read as the shape of base 202, figures 1, 2A, 2B and 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 15, as applied to claim 13 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the polygonal shape is even-sided such that the foot has a proximal side hingedly coupled to the base and an opposing distal side configured to securely engage a surface in the portrait configuration and the landscape configuration (read as both ends of the rectangular base 102/202, with one end hingedly coupled to the tongue element 214 of the supporting assembly 210, and another end securely engages with surface in the portrait configuration and landscape configuration, figures 1, 2A, 2B and 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 16, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein, in the collapsed configuration, the leg and the foot are nested in the base (read as the base 102 has a shape that matches the tongue element 214 of the supporting assembly 210 to enable next/collapsed configuration as shown in figure 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the leg defines a groove that is configured to receive a portion of the foot to enable the foot to be nested with the leg in the collapsed configuration (read as the base 102 has a shape that matches the arm 104/204 to enable next/collapsed configuration as shown in figure 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the first axis about which the leg rotates relative to the base is parallel to the second axis about which the foot rotates relative to the leg (read as the axis which the arm 104/204 rotates is parallel to the axis which the base 102/202 rotates, figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0023] and [0025]-[0029]).
Consider claim 19, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the proximal end of the leg is hingedly coupled to a first edge of the base and the distal end of the leg is hingedly coupled to a second edge of the foot (read as arm element 204 has a proximal end 206 and a distal end 208, proximal end 206 is pivotally (first axis) coupled to a supporting assembly 210, and the distal end 208 is hingedly coupled to the second edge of the base 102/202, figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]).
Consider claim 21, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein, in the ring-grip configuration, the leg is nested with the base and the foot is rotated to an extended foot position relative to the leg (read as with the hand-strap 20, any figure configuration would be a ring-grip configuration, include when the arm 104/204 is in closed position and the base 102/202 is in rotated/extended position, as the user can easy use the hand-strap 20 to hold the device, figures 2-4, par [0035]-[0038] of Carnevali, and figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025] of Drakos).
Consider claim 23, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein, in the portrait configuration, the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base and the foot to an extend foot position relative to the leg (read as the arm 104/204 is rotated to a position and the base 102/202 is rotated to a position as shown figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1).
Consider claim 14, as applied to claim 13 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the polygonal shape is a hexagon.
Nonetheless, Happer discloses a stand for a mobile device, which the stand is hexagonal shape, par [0031] and [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Happer into the teachings of Drako, which modified by Carnevali, to modify the stand with Happer’s hexagonal stand design as it is just a matter of design choice (see par [0036] of Happer).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1), and in further view of Balderston (US 20250357961 A1).
Consider claim 20, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the base includes a magnet to adjustably couple the base to the back side of the mobile device.
Nonetheless, Balderston discloses a case with a stand for a mobile device, comprising magnetic attachment elements within the base to adjustably couple the base to the back of the mobile device or case, figures 5A-5E, abstract and par [0192].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Balderston into the teachings of Drako, which modified by Carnevali, to modify the case with Balderston’s magnetic attachment interface in order to allow easy attachment/detachment of the stand.
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1), and in further view of Yang (US 20230175636 A1).
Consider claim 22, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein, in the landscape configuration, the foot is nested with the leg and the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base.
Nonetheless, Yang discloses using only a single leg 40 is needed for landscape configuration, and the single leg is coupled to the base/disk 20 (see figure 7, par [0028] and [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the teachings of Drako, which modified by Carnevali, to modify the stand with Yang’s landscape configuration to use only one single leg (with the base 102/202 collapsed/closed) to provide a neat looking landscape configuration (see figure 7 of Yang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645