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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/27/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as 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 as a result 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,629,626. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the Patent include the claimed subject matter of the present claims [the difference in language is semantics].
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,629,626 in view of Hettinger et al. [Hettinger hereinafter, US 2007/0095637]. Claim 8 of the Patent does not disclose that a diameter of the cable threading hole ranges from 15 mm to 25 mm. Hettinger teaches [in Fig. 2] that a diameter of the cable threading hole [112] ranges from 15 mm to 25 mm [par. 0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a cable threading hole with a diameter that ranges from 15 mm to 25 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 3, 4 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,629,626 in view of Tanaka et al. [Tanaka hereinafter, US 7,141,748].
In regard to claims 3 and 4, claim 8 of the Patent does not disclose that the knob assembly comprises a knob ring; the knob ring is formed with the installation cavity, and the knob ring is sleeved on a periphery surface of the display screen and drivingly connected to the rotation sleeve, wherein the knob assembly further comprises a transmission member; the transmission member is provided on the rotation sleeve, and the knob ring is provided on the transmission member; the knob ring is drivingly connected to the rotation sleeve via the transmission member, and the transmission member and the knob ring are enclosed to form the installation cavity. Tanaka teaches[in Figs. 1-3] that the knob assembly comprises a knob ring [3]; the knob ring [3] is formed with the installation cavity, and the knob ring [3] is sleeved on a periphery surface of the display screen [6] and drivingly connected to the rotation sleeve [9b], wherein the knob assembly further comprises a transmission member [8]; the transmission member [8] is provided on the rotation sleeve [9b], and the knob ring [3] is provided on the transmission member [8]; the knob ring [3] is drivingly connected to the rotation sleeve [9b] via the transmission member [8], and the transmission member [8] and the knob ring [3] are enclosed to form the installation cavity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the knob ring and transmission member of Tanaka with the assembly of the Patent in order to actuate the assembly as desired.
In regard to claim 12, claim 8 of the Patent does not disclose a connection support, wherein one of the connection support and the fixed seat is provided with a second restriction protrusion, and another of the connection support and the fixed seat is provided with a second restriction groove; the connection support is restricted and installed to the fixed seat by a cooperation of the second restriction protrusion and the second restriction groove. Tanaka teaches [in Figs. 1-3] a connection support [7c], wherein one of the connection support [7c] and the fixed seat [9a] is provided with a second restriction protrusion [7c], and another of the connection support [7c] and the fixed seat [9a] is provided with a second restriction groove [9d]; the connection support [7c] is restricted and installed to the fixed seat [9a] by a cooperation of the second restriction protrusion [7c] and the second restriction groove [9d]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the connection support of Tanaka with the assembly of the Patent in order to ensure a secure connection between the parts of the assembly and to enable connection between parts as desired.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,629,626 in view of Tanaka et al. [Tanaka hereinafter, US 7,141,748] further in view of Baker [US 8,198,555]. The Patent and Tanaka do not disclose that one of the transmission member and the rotation sleeve is provided with a first clamping catch, and another of the transmission member and the rotation sleeve is provided with a first clamping groove; the transmission member is connected to the rotation sleeve via the first clamping catch and the first clamping groove. Baker teaches [in Figs. 2 and 3] that one of the transmission member [170] and the rotation sleeve [196] is provided with a first clamping catch [214], and another of the transmission member [170] and the rotation sleeve [196] is provided with a first clamping groove [210]; the transmission member [170] is connected to the rotation sleeve [196] via the first clamping catch [214] and the first clamping groove [210]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first clamping catch and first clamping groove of Baker with the adjustment assembly of the Patent, as modified by Tanaka, in order to effectively secure the components together to ensure proper actuation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 9-11 are 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.
In regard to claim 6, in combination with other limitations, the transmission member comprising a first sleeve, a second sleeve and a ring-shaped connection board, one side of the ring-shaped connection board being connected to the first sleeve, and another side of the ring-shaped connection board being connected to the second sleeve, the first sleeve being connected to the knob ring, and the second sleeve being connected to the rotation sleeve, the ring-shaped connection board and the fixed connection board being spaced apart, and a diameter of the ring-shaped connection board configured to gradually increase along a direction from the second sleeve to the first sleeve is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 9, in combination with other limitations, a side of the display screen facing the fixed connection board provided with restriction columns, and a periphery surface of the display circuit board provided with restriction holes, the restriction columns being restricted to the restriction holes, and the display circuit board adhering to the display screen is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
In regard to claim 11, in combination with other limitations, a first soft cable and a second soft cable, wherein one end of the first soft cable is electrically connected to the display circuit board, and one end of the second soft cable is electrically connected to the fixed seat is neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LHEIREN MAE A CAROC whose telephone number is (571)272-2730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/LHEIREN MAE A CAROC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights