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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/1/25 has been entered.
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(s) 1, 3, 5, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frishman (2009/0256520) in view of Hess et al. (2009/0288925), and further in view of Richardson et al. (2006/0274493).
Regarding claim 1, Frishman discloses a portable television device comprising: a case comprised of a body (102); a lid (104) attached to the body via an inherently included hinge and securable to the body via an inherently included locking mechanism; a display screen (note the monitor in par. 15); a battery (204); a USB charging port in electrical communication with the battery (note par. 18); and a solar panel positioned on the case and configured to charge the battery (106).
However, Frishman does not disclose that the locking mechanism is a clasp, and that the case water-sealed case as claimed.
Hess, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the use of a clasp (note 121a and 121b in Fig. 4). By using the clasp mechanism, a laptop computer can be safely secured (note par. 33). This clasp mechanism is notoriously well known and can be applied for locking laptops such as in Frishman.
Without a secure locking mechanism, the cover 104 and the main body 102 in Frishman can be opened or rotated away from each other during transportation, which can incur damages to the laptop computer.
Knowing that secure locking mechanism is needed in Frishman in order to prevent the lid from opening from the main body during transportation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the clasp mechanism of Hess so that the lid could be securely locked to the main body during transportation.
As to the water-sealed case feature, Richardson teaches such case (note Figs. 13, 14 and 19). By using water-sealed case, the laptop can be operated in recreational environments (note par. 43), which further increases the versatilities of the personal electronic device or laptops.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Richardson into Frishman so that the laptop could be used in different water recreational activities.
Regarding claim 3, the battery in Frishman is removable.
Regarding claim 5, the screen is comprised a connection port (note par. 18).
Regarding claim 14, see rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the laptop in paragraph 3 inherently includes HDMI port.
Regarding claim 19, the laptop in paragraph 3 inherently includes ethernet port.
Regarding claim 20, the body inherently comprises a handle (note par. 53). That is, the briefcase as described in paragraph 53 for holding the laptop or the battery-powered electronic device inherently includes a handle.
Claim(s) 7, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frishman (2009/0256520) in view of Hess et al. (2009/0288925), further in view of Richardson et al. (2006/0274493), and further in view of JPS58159968U.
Regarding claims 7, 11, 12, and 15-17, Frishman, Hess and Richardson together disclose all the features of the claimed invention as set forth above except the tie hanging element and exterior hinge as claimed. JPS58159968U, from the similar field of endeavor, discloses the tie hanging element (30, 37) and the exterior hinge (33, 20) as claimed. The hinge 20 and suspension cord or string 30 and 37 enable picture frames 1a to be hung on a wall flexibly. The hinge brackets (33, 20) can be attached to any picture or display frame body readily as shown in Figs. 13-18. By using these hinge brackets and suspension cords, a picture or display frame can be hung on a wall so that the picture or display can be viewed by many viewers at the same time. This increases convenience. Thus, in view of JPS58159968U, if the display in Frishman is needed to be viewed by a plurality of viewers at the same time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include JPS58159968U into the combination of Frishman, Hess and Richardson to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Frishman does not disclose that the port is comprised a cover. The examiner takes Official Notice that using a cover to protect electronic ports is well known in the art, which is critical when the electronic device is operated in a harsh environment. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cover into Frishman so that the ports could be protected from pollutants in the harsh environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422