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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Electronic Device with Unitary Glass Cover.
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 1-7 and 10-11 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 states, “a glass cover positioned coupled to the housing structure.” However, the limitation “positioned coupled to” is confusing. It is unclear if the limitation should read “coupled to” or “positioned on”. For the purposes of examination, the cited limitation will be read as, “a glass cover
Claim 7 claims, “the glass top member further defines, at the convex region, a virtual keyboard.” However, it is unclear if this limitation requires the keyboard, previously introduced in claim 1, to be a virtual keyboard, or if the limitation is introducing a new virtual keyboard. Based on Paragraphs [0011] and [0037] of the instant application, the former interpretation will be adopted for the purposes of examination.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first circuit board assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 should likely be made dependent on claim 9, and will be treated as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second circuit board assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10, upon which claim 11 is dependent, should likely be made dependent on claim 9, and will be treated as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 11 is also rejected due to its dependency on claim 10.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891) in view of Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Takano discloses a laptop computer comprising: a lid portion (housing 2) comprising: a housing structure (rear portion of 2); a front portion of 2) coupled to the housing structure (rear portion of 2) and defining a concave region (see Figure 2); and a display (display 1) positioned below the concave region of the front portion of 2); and a base portion (comprised of keyboard 4 and main body housing 5) positionable in a closed configuration (see Figure 1) and an open configuration (see Figure 2) with respect to the lid portion (2) and defining a convex region (corresponding to keyboard 4) along a top side of the base portion (top side of 5), the convex region (corresponding to keyboard 4) configured to extend into the concave region (see Figure 1) of the front portion of 2) when the lid portion (2) and the base portion (4, 5) are in the closed configuration (see Figure 1), the base portion (4, 5) comprising a keyboard (4) positioned at the convex region (see Figures 1-2).
Takano does not disclose wherein the front cover is a glass cover. However, Amano teaches a lid (3) comprising: a housing structure (5); and a glass cover (4) coupled to the housing structure (5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have made the selection of a known cover material, such as glass, based on its suitability for its intended use, here being a durable material used to cover/protect the display of a portable computer (see Paragraph [0024] in Amano). MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891) in view of Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439) and Tanaka (US Publication No. 2011/0075356).
Regarding claim 2, Takano in view of Amano teaches the laptop computer of claim 1, and further teaches wherein: the glass cover (front portion of 2, as modified by Amano) is a unitary glass structure (front portion of 2, as modified by Amano); the lid portion (2) is coupled to the base portion (4, 5) by a hinge (3); the keyboard (4) comprises a plurality of physical keys (see Figures 1-2).
Takano in view of Amano does not teach the base portion further comprising a trackpad positioned at the convex region.
However, Tanaka teaches a lid comprising a housing structure (outer panel 17) and a cover (base frame 14), the cover (14) comprising a concave region (14a); and a base portion (second chassis 31) comprising a convex region (see Figure 8), wherein the base portion (31) comprises a keyboard (input device 32) and a trackpad (touchpad 33; see Paragraph [0027]) positioned at the convex region (see Figures 1 and 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the convex region and trackpad of Tanaka to the base portion of Takano as modified by Amano. Doing so would have provided the user with an additional input device and a palm rest area for which the user could comfortably use the input devices (see Paragraph [0027] and Figure 1 in Tanaka).
Regarding claim 8, Takano discloses a portable computing device comprising: a lid portion (2) comprising: a housing structure (rear portion of 2); a unitary front portion of 2) coupled to the housing structure (rear portion of 2) and defining: a bezel region (protruding front portions of 2); and a recessed region (recessed front portion of 2 corresponding to 1) at least partially surrounded by the bezel region (protruding front portion of 2); and a display (1) positioned below the recessed region (recessed front portion of 2 corresponding to 1); and a base portion (4, 5) flexibly coupled (via hinge 3) to the lid portion (2) and comprising: a keyboard (4) protruding from a top surface of the base portion (top surface of base of 5) and configured to extend into the recessed region when the lid portion (recessed front portion of 2 corresponding to 1) and the base portion (4, 5) are in a closed configuration (see Figure 1).
Takano does not disclose wherein the unitary cover is a unitary glass cover.
However, Amano teaches a lid (3) comprising: a housing structure (5); and a unitary glass cover (4) coupled to the housing structure (5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have made the selection of a known cover material, such as glass, based on its suitability for its intended use, here being a durable material used to cover/protect the display of a portable computer (Paragraphs [0024] in Amano). MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Takano in view of Amano does not teach a trackpad protruding from the top surface of the base portion and configured to extend into the recessed region when the lid portion and the base portion are in the closed configuration.
However, Tanaka teaches a lid (11) comprising a housing structure (17) and a cover (base frame 14), the cover comprising a concave region (14a); and a base portion (31) comprising a keyboard (input device 32) and a trackpad (touch pad 33; see Paragraph [0027]) protruding from the top surface of the base portion (Figures 1 and 7-8, top surface of stepped portion 39) and configured to extend into the recessed region (14a, corresponding to recessed front portion of 2 in Takano) when the lid portion (11) and the base portion (31) are in the closed configuration (see Figures 7-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the stepped, top surface and trackpad of Tanaka to the base portion of Takano as modified by Amano. Doing so would have provided the user with an additional input device and a palm rest area for which the user could comfortably use the input devices (see Paragraph [0027] and Figure 1 in Tanaka).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), and in further view of Min (US Patent No. 6094340).
Regarding claim 3, Takano in view of Amano teaches the laptop computer of claim 1, wherein: the concave region (see Figures 1-2) defines a display region of the lid portion (portion of 2 corresponding to 1); and the glass cover (front portion of 2, as modified by Amano) further defines: a bezel region (protruding portions of 2) extending around a periphery of the display region (portion of 2 corresponding to 1); and a curved transition region (see Figures 1-2) extending from the bezel region (protruding portion of 2) to the display region (portion of 2 corresponding to 1).
While Takano suggests a curved transition region (see Figures 1-2) extending from the bezel region (protruding portion of 2) to the display region (portion of 2 corresponding to 1), Min explicitly teaches a curved transition region (see Figures 1-2) extending from the bezel region (protruding portion of 100) to the display region (101, corresponding to portion of 2 in corresponding to 1 Takano).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the bezel and curved transition region of Takano as modified by Amano to extend about the periphery of the display region, as explicitly taught in Min. Doing so would have ensured the front cover protected all edges of the display region from incidental contact in a uniform manner (see Figures 1-4 in Min).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), and in further view of Tanaka (US Publication No. 2011/0075356) and Degner (EP Publication No. 3540558).
Regarding claim 5, Takano in view of Amano teaches the laptop computer of claim 1, but does not teach wherein: the base portion comprises a glass top member; and the glass top member at least partially defines the convex region.
However, Tanaka teaches wherein: a base portion (31) comprises a 33); and the 33) at least partially defines the convex region (convex portion of 31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the convex region and trackpad of Tanaka to the base portion of Takano as modified by Amano. Doing so would have provided the user with an additional input device and a palm rest area for which the user could comfortably use the input devices (see Paragraph [0027] and Figure 1 in Tanaka).
Takano in view of Amano and Tanaka does not explicitly teach the top member being a glass top member. However, Degner teaches a top member (116) being a glass top member (see Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have made the selection of a known trackpad material, such as glass, based on its suitability for its intended use, here being a cosmetic and structural material used to establish a touch surface for a trackpad (see Paragraph [0039] in Degner). MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Regarding claim 6, Takano in view of Amano, Tanaka, and Degner teaches the laptop computer of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the glass top member (33 in Tanaka, as modified by Degner) defines, at the convex region, a trackpad (see Figure 1 in Tanaka).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), Tanaka (US Publication No. 2011/0075356), Degner (EP Publication No. 3540558), and in further view of Wang (US Publication No. 2019/0033923).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Takano in view of Amano, Tanaka, and Degner teaches the laptop computer of claim 6, but does not teach wherein the glass top member further defines, at the convex region, a virtual keyboard.
However, Wang teaches a glass top member (comprised of glass top case 112, force sensing system 302, and display 304) defined as a virtual keyboard (see Figures 1-4 and Paragraphs [0003], [0058]-[0059]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the physical keyboard of Takano as modified by Amano, Tanaka, and Degner for the virtual keyboard of Wang, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of providing a portable computer with a keying input device. Doing so would have also increased the functionality of the portable computer by providing a keyboard capable of displaying various keying symbols (see Figures 1-4 and Paragraphs [0003], [0058]-[0059]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), Tanaka (US Publication No. 2011/0075356), and in further view of Ohgami (US Patent No. 5905550) and Ma (US Patent No. 5132876).
Regarding claim 9, Takano in view of Amano and Tanaka teaches the portable computing device of claim 8, and further teaches (in Takano) wherein: the lid portion (2) is coupled to the base portion (4, 5) via a hinge mechanism (3) positioned along a bottom side of the lid portion (bottom of 2) and a back side of the base portion (rear of 5).
Takano in view of Amano and Tanaka does not teach the portable computing device further comprising: a first circuit board assembly in the lid portion and positioned between the recessed region and the hinge mechanism; and a second circuit board assembly in the base portion and positioned between the keyboard and the hinge mechanism.
However, Ohgami teaches a portable computing device comprising: a first circuit board assembly (46) in a lid portion (3) and positioned between the recessed region portion (space within 20, corresponding to recessed front portion of 2 in Takano) and the hinge mechanism (hinge within 15).
Ma teaches a portable computing device comprising a second circuit board assembly (motherboard 2) in the base portion (1) and positioned between the keyboard (11) and the hinge mechanism (hinge of 81).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the first circuit board assembly of Ohgami to the lid portion of Takano as modified by Amano and Tanaka, and the second circuit board assembly of Ma to the base portion of Takano as modified by Amano and Tanaka. Doing so would have provided the lid portion with drive circuitry configured to control the display (see col. 8, ln. 1-6 in Ohgami). Doing so would have also provided the base with processing circuitry and the capability of connecting various functional modules to increase the modularity of the system (see Figure 1 and cols. 1-2 in Ma).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Takano in view of Amano, Tanaka, Ohgami, and Ma teaches the portable computing device of claim 9, and further teaches (in Ohgami) wherein the first circuit board assembly (46) is non-overlapping with an active area of the display (see Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the first circuit board of Ohgami within the lid portion of Takano as previously modified by Amano, Tanaka, Ohgami, and Ma, as taught in Ohgami, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Takano in view of Amano, Tanaka, Ohgami, and Ma teaches the portable computing device of claim 10, and further teaches (in Ma) wherein the second circuit board assembly (2) is non-overlapping with the keyboard (11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the second circuit board of Ma within the base portion of Takano as previously modified by Amano, Tanaka, Ohgami, and Ma, as taught in Ma, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), Tanaka (US Publication No. 2011/0075356), and in further view of Wang (US Publication No. 2019/0033923).
Regarding claim 12, Takano in view of Amano and Tanaka teaches the portable computing device of claim 8, but does not teach wherein: the base portion comprises a unitary glass top member; the keyboard is a virtual keyboard; and the unitary glass top member defines a surface of the virtual keyboard and a surface of the trackpad.
However, Wang teaches wherein: a base portion (104) comprises a unitary glass top member (112; see Paragraph [0043]); the keyboard (114) is a virtual keyboard (see Figures 1-3); and the unitary glass top member (112) defines a surface of the virtual keyboard (114) and a surface of the trackpad (116).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the base portion of Takano as modified by Amano and Tanaka to be a unitary glass top cover that comprises the keyboard and track pad as taught in Wang. Doing so would have provided for a more streamline design while also increasing the functionality of the device by providing a larger touch input area and a keyboard capable of displaying various keying symbols (see Figures 1-4 and Paragraphs [0003], [0043]-[0059]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), Tanaka (US Publication No. 2011/0075356), and in further view of Song (US Publication No. 2011/0051348).
Regarding claim 13, Takano in view of Amano and Tanaka teaches the portable computing device of claim 8, but does not teach wherein: the bezel region is opaque; and the recessed region is transparent.
However, Song teaches a unitary glass cover (30; see Paragraph [0034]) comprising a bezel region (33) and a recessed region (31, corresponding to recessed front portion of 2 in Takano), wherein: the bezel region (33) is opaque (see Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]); and the recessed region (31) is transparent (see Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the bezel portion of Takano as modified by Amano and Tanaka to be opaque, and the recessed region of Takano as modified by Amano and Tanaka to be transparent, as taught in Song. Doing so would have increased the aesthetic appearance of the device by preventing components of the lid from being visible, but for the display area (see Paragraphs [0034]-[0035] in Song).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), Tanaka (US Publication No. 2011/0075356), Wang (US Publication No. 2019/0033923), and in further view of Gotham (US Publication No. 2011/0075342).
Regarding claim 14, Takano in view of Amano, Tanaka, and Wang teaches the portable computing device of claim 12, but does not teach further comprising an opaque mask positioned in the bezel region along an interior surface of the unitary glass cover.
However, Gotham teaches an opaque mask (masking layer) positioned in the bezel region (edges of 110) along an interior surface of the unitary glass cover (interior surface of 110; see Figure 5 and Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the opaque masking layer of Gotham to the bezel portion of Takano as modified by Amano, Tanaka, and Wang. Doing so would have increased the aesthetic appearance of the device by preventing internal components of the lid from being visible, but for the display area (see Paragraph [0053] in Gotham).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891) in view of Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439) and Ohgami (US Patent No. 5905550).
Regarding claim 15, Takano discloses a portable computing device comprising: a lid portion (2) comprising: a housing (rear portion of 2); a display (1) at least partially within the housing (rear portion of 2); a unitary front portion of 2) positioned over the display (1) and defining: a bezel region (protruded edges of 2) extending at least partially around an active area of the display (1); and a recessed display region (recessed front portion of 2) recessed relative to the bezel region (protruding edges of 2) and positioned over the active area of the display (1); and a base portion (4, 5) flexibly coupled (via hinge 3) to the lid portion (2) and comprising a keyboard (4) protruding from a top surface of the base portion (top surface of 5) and configured to extend into the recessed display region (see Figure 1) when the lid portion (2) and the base portion (4, 5) are in a closed configuration (see Figure 1).
Takano does not disclose wherein the unitary cover is a unitary glass cover.
However, Amano teaches a lid (3) comprising: a housing structure (5); and a unitary glass cover (4) coupled to the housing structure (5) and positioned over a display (6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have made the selection of a known cover material, such as glass, based on its suitability for its intended use, here being a durable material used to cover/protect the display of a portable computer (Paragraphs [0024] in Amano). MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Takano in view of Amano does not explicitly teach a circuit board assembly positioned below a portion of the bezel region and conductively coupled to the display.
However, Ohgami teaches a portable computing device comprising: a circuit board assembly (46) positioned below a portion of a bezel region (lower portion of 21) and conductively coupled to the display (30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the first circuit board assembly of Ohgami to the lid portion of Takano as modified by Amano. Doing so would have provided the lid portion with drive circuitry configured to control the display (see col. 8, ln. 1-6 in Ohgami).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), Ohgami (US Patent No. 5905550), and in further view of Tenuta (US Publication No. 2014/0313156).
Regarding claim 16, Takano in view of Amano and Ohgami teaches the portable computing device of claim 15, but does not teach wherein the lid portion further comprises a touch sensing system configured to detect touch inputs applied to the recessed display region and at least a portion of the bezel region.
However, Tenuta teaches wherein the lid portion (110) further comprises a touch sensing system (touch circuitry; see Figures 1-2 and Paragraph [0016]) configured to detect touch inputs applied to the recessed display region (120, corresponding to recessed front portion 2 in Takano) and at least a portion of the bezel region (130, corresponding to protruding front portion of 2 in Takano).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the touch circuitry of Tenuta to the glass cover of Takano as modified by Amano and Ohgami. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the portable computer by allowing the device to detect and processed touch inputs from a user (see Paragraph [0003]-[0007] in Tenuta)
Regarding claim 17, Takano in view of Amano and Ohgami teaches the portable computing device of claim 15, but does not teach a camera positioned in the bezel region.
However, Tenuta teaches wherein a lid portion (110) further comprises a camera (140) positioned in the bezel region (130).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the camera of Tenuta to the bezel region of Takano in view of Amano and Ohgami. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the portable computer by allowing a user to video conference with others (see Paragraph [0020] and Figure 1 in Tenuta).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US Patent No. 5534891), Amano (US Publication No. 2020/0073439), Ohgami (US Patent No. 5905550), and in further view of Ma (US Patent No. 5132876).
Regarding claim 18, Takano in view of Amano and Ohgami teaches the portable computing device of claim 15, and further teaches wherein: the circuit board assembly (46 in Ohgami) is a first circuit board assembly (see Figure 1); but does not teach the base portion comprising a second circuit board assembly conductively coupled to the first circuit board assembly.
However, Ma teaches a portable computer comprising a base portion (1), wherein the base portion (1) comprises a second circuit board assembly (2) conductively coupled to the first circuit board assembly (circuit of display 8, via connectors within 81).
Because Ohgami also suggests first circuit board 46 is connected to a second circuit board within base 2 (see col. 8, ln. 15-19 in Ohgami), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the motherboard of Ma to the base of Ohgami, such that the first and second circuit board were connected. Doing so would have allowed inputs from the base portion to be realized on the display, and would have provided the base with processing circuitry and the capability of connecting various functional modules to increase the modularity of the system (see Figure 1 and cols. 1-2 in Ma).
Regarding claim 19, Takano in view of Amano, Ohgami, and Ma teaches the portable computing device of claim 18, and further teaches (in Takano) wherein: the base portion (4, 5) is flexibly coupled to the lid portion (2) via a hinge mechanism (3) positioned along a bottom of the lid portion (bottom of 2) and a back of the base portion (rear of 5); and further teaches (in Ma) wherein the second circuit board assembly (2) is positioned within the base portion (1) between the keyboard (11) and the hinge mechanism (hinge of 81).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the second circuit board of Ma within the base portion of Takano as previously modified by Amano, Ohgami, and Ma, as taught in Ma, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 20, Takano in view of Amano, Ohgami, and Ma teaches the portable computing device of claim 19, and further teaches (in Takano) wherein: the keyboard (4) is positioned in a keyboard region (area corresponding to 4) of the base portion (4, 5); and further teaches (in Ohgami) wherein the first circuit board assembly (46) is positioned entirely outside the recessed display region (within area defined by mask 20, corresponding to recessed front portion of 2 in Takano); and further teaches (in Ma) the second circuit board assembly (2) is positioned entirely outside the keyboard region (11; see Figures 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the first and second circuit boards of Ohgami and Ma within the lid and base portions of Takano as previously modified by Amano, Ohgami, and Ma, as taught in Ohgami and Ma, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 claims the laptop computer of claim 3, wherein: the curved transition region is a first curved transition region; and the base portion comprises a top member defining: the convex region; a peripheral region extending around a periphery of the convex region; and a second curved transition region extending from the peripheral region to the convex region.
None of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, teach each and every limitation of claim 4. Claim 4 would thus 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. Nakagaki (US Publication No. 2024/0201748), Senatori (US Publication No. 2012/0014051), Maeda (US Publication No. 2009/0103257), Laaksonen (US Publication No. 2008/0117570), Doczy (US Publication No. 2006/0002066), Sasaki (US Publication No. 2002/0172002), Conner (US Patent No. 5175672), Oshiba (US Patent No. 5243549), Yanagisawa (US Patent No. 5291370), Sellers (US Patent No. 5532904), Howell (US Patent No. 5768093), Chiu (US Patent No. 5991150), Yen (US Patent No. 6008983), Nakajima (US Patent No. 6198626), Suzuki (US Patent No. 6262882), Asano (US Patent No. 6853336), Pan (US Patent No. 7221561), Tracy (US Patent No. 7349199), Ligtenberg (US Patent No. 7428142), and Matsuoka (US Patent No. 9019691) also teach elements of the claimed device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc