DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for US Application 18/566,348 for a Device for Picking Up, Holding and Handling Input/Display Units.
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 Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 of claim 1, the “+” should be deleted. Line 2 of claim 8, the word - - to - - should be inserted after the word “according”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 the limitation "the back" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the casing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the display device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the appearance" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the letter V" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fingers" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the back" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom" in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the palm" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the natural movement" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the base" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the construction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bottom” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the appearance" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inside" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the two opposite abutment positions" in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the diameter of a vertical rod" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the diameter of the two oblique rods" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “and/or”, which is indefinite because it is not clear what is or is not covered by the limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0264867 to Dobson et al. Regarding claim 1, Dobson et al. discloses a device for gripping, holding in the hand and handling of an input/display unit characterized in that it consists, for its visible part when in its vertical use position, of two non-colinear cylindrical oblique rods (52A, 52B or 44A, 44B) attached to the back of a casing of the display device and having the appearance of the letter V. The fingers of one hand slide under the oblique rods so that the hand is sandwiched, the back of the hand against the bottom of the oblique rods, and the palm, against the back of the casing, which has the effect of securing the hand with the casing.
An outlet is reinforced by natural movement bearing the fingers to be clamped against one another, and therefore also to tighten on the base of the device where the two oblique rods meet, which results in keeping the casing secured to the hand. The device and the casing are released as soon as an effort is exerted to separate the fingers enclosing the base of the device (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, a vertical rod (42) is located under a junction of the two oblique rods, the visible part of the device then being in the form of a Y (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, the oblique rods are combined in a construction of a butterfly with no translational rotation.
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson et al. Dobson et al. discloses the system as comprising one device instead of two devices. However, a duplication of parts (two devices instead of one) is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention as providing two devices instead of one does not produce a new and unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
US 2020/0344343 to Tsitron
US 2022/0128194 to Snow
US 2024/0137434 to Boterashevili
US 2022/0159113 to Parish, Sr.US 2023/0291821 to Bai
US 2018/0332153 to BrownUS 2023/0362287 to Fowler
US 2022/0070286 to Cooper
US 8844098 to Karmatz
US 8672374 to Webber
US 2012/0042476 to Karmatz
US 2024/0041192 to Jiang
The above prior art discloses various devices for gripping and holding various input/display units in the hand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights