DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been considered for patentability.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made because of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,915,151 (151 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application is commensurate in scope to Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the 151 Patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,369 (369 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application is commensurate in scope to Claims 1, 9 and 16 of the 369 Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 7-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US Publication 2015/0109170).
In re Claim 1, Kang discloses an electronic device comprising: an enclosure comprising: a housing, at least a portion of the housing having a laminate structure comprising: a first layer 201 defining a front surface and a first portion of an exterior side surface of the housing; a second layer 203 defining a rear surface and a second portion of the exterior side surface of the housing; and at least one intermediate layer 202, 300 positioned between the first layer and the second layer and defining a third portion of the exterior side surface of the housing; and a cover member 210a coupled to the housing and defining a transparent window; and a touch-sensitive display 210b positioned below the cover member and within a cavity defined at least in part by the housing and the cover member; and electronic circuitry 251 positioned within the cavity.
In re Claim 2, Kang disclose wherein: the at least one intermediate layer 202, 300 defines an opening (See Figures 2 and 3); and a device component 213, 214, 215, 219 is positioned within the opening.
In re Claim 3, Kang discloses wherein the device component 213, 214, 215, 219 is an electronic component that is operably connected to the electronic circuitry 251.
In re Claim 4, Kang discloses wherein: each of the first layer 201 and the second layer 203 is formed from a metal; the at least one intermediate layer is formed at least in part from a dielectric material 330; and the dielectric material of the at least one intermediate layer at least partially defines the third portion of the exterior side surface of the housing. See Kang, Figures 2 and 3.
In re Claim 5, Kang discloses wherein: the first layer 201 and the at least one intermediate layer 202, 300 together define a side wall of the housing; and the second layer 203 defines a rear wall of the housing.
In re Claim 7, Kang discloses wherein the electronic circuitry 251 comprises wireless communication circuitry. Kang, paragraph 0055.
In re Claim 8, Kang discloses an electronic device comprising: electronic circuitry 251; a display assembly 210b; and an enclosure at least partially surrounding the electronic circuitry and the display assembly and comprising: a housing formed at least in part from a set of layers that define an exterior side surface of the housing, the set of layers comprising: a first layer 201 defining a front surface of the housing; a second layer 203 defining a rear surface of the housing; and a set of intermediate layers 202, 300 positioned at least partially between the first layer and the second layer; and a cover member 210a at least partially defining a front surface of the electronic device, positioned over the display assembly, and coupled to the housing.
In re Claim 9, Kang discloses wherein multiple layers of the set of intermediate layers 202, 300 protrude with respect to a portion of an interior surface of the housing that is defined by another layer of the set of layers (the layers extend into the interior of the housing). See Kang, Figure 4.
In re Claim 10, Kang discloses wherein the multiple layers 202, 300 of the set of intermediate layers define an attachment feature. See Kang, Figures 4, 6 and 9 (showing various mounting holes and attachment features for attaching various components within the device).
In re Claim 11, Kang discloses wherein the multiple layers 202, 300 of the set of intermediate layers define a midplate of the housing. See Kang, Figure 4.
In re Claim 13, Kang discloses wherein the set of intermediate layers 202, 300 defines the exterior side surface of the housing.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US Publication 2015/0109170) in view of Theobald et al. (US Patent 8,687,359).
In re Claim 6, Kang discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose a second enclosure. However, Theobald discloses a first enclosure and a second enclosure (See Figure 1A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before the effective filing date to have provided a second enclosure rotatable to the first enclosure, as taught in Theobald, and to have modified Kang to have a second enclosure to provide the known benefits of having a notebook computer design (increased workable surfaces with less of a footprint since the device can close into a clamshell orientation).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US Publication 2015/0109170) in view of Charlier et al. (US Publication 2010/0277439).
In re Claim 14, Kang discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose a second cover member on the rear of the device. However, Charlier discloses a second cover member 122 disposed on a rear of the portable electronic device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before the effective filing date to have provided a rear cover member, as disclosed in Charlier, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Kang to provide additional functions to the rear cover (e.g., an additional display device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowable over the prior art of record and would be patentable but for the obvious type double patenting rejections above.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The specific limitations of “wherein each of the multiple layers of the set of intermediate layers define comprises: a first portion formed from a metal material and defining a respective portion of the exterior side surface of the housing; and a second portion formed from a material different than the metal material and defining a foldable region of the set of intermediate layers” in Claim 12 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
The specific limitations of “a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion, defining an input surface, and comprising: a second enclosure defining an exterior side surface and a rear surface of the electronic device, the second enclosure comprising: a housing comprising: a first metal layer defining a first portion of the exterior side surface; a second metal layer defining a second portion of the exterior side surface; and at least one intermediate layer positioned between and coupled to the first metal layer and the second metal layer and defining a third portion of the exterior side surface; a front cover member coupled to the housing and defining a front surface of the second enclosure; and a rear cover member coupled to the housing and defining a rear surface of the second enclosure; and a touch sensor positioned within the second enclosure and configured to detect a touch along the input surface” in Claim 15 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
For example, Kang discloses an electronic device comprising: a first portion comprising: a first enclosure defining an internal cavity and a transparent window 210a (Figure 4); and a display 210b positioned within the first enclosure and below the transparent window; the first portion defining an input surface, and comprising: an exterior side surface and a rear surface of the electronic device, the first enclosure comprising: a housing comprising: a first metal layer 300 defining a first portion of the exterior side surface; a second metal layer 203 defining a second portion of the exterior side surface; and at least one intermediate layer 202 positioned between and coupled to the first metal layer and the second metal layer and defining a third portion of the exterior side surface; a front cover member 201 coupled to the housing and defining a front surface of the second enclosure;
However, Kang does not disclose wherein each of the multiple layers of the set of intermediate layers define comprises: a first portion formed from a metal material and defining a respective portion of the exterior side surface of the housing; and a second portion formed from a material different than the metal material and defining a foldable region of the set of intermediate layers. Kang also does not disclose a rear cover member coupled to the housing and defining a rear surface of the second enclosure (Kang effectively does not disclose the number of layers claimed). Kang also does not disclose a second portion rotatably coupled to the first portion comprising a second enclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights