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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of US Patent No.12,244,750. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2 of US Patent No. 12,244,750 encompasses the limitations of claims 1-7 of instant application. Moreover, omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its functions is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same function as before In re Karison, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 uspq 375 (Bd. App. 1969).
More specifically, the claims 1-20 of the present application are same scope, same function and same results as claims 1-2 of the US Patent No. 12,244,750. In addition, even though the claims of present application omitted or simply rearranged claimed structure, or added the limitation using similar claimed elements, the function and results of claimed invention of the US Patent No. 12,244,750 is same as claimed invention of the present application.
In addition, the independent claims 1 and 5 of the present application is the same invention as the independent claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12,244,750. The subject matter in the instant application is fully disclosed in the US Patent No. 12,244,750 and is covered by the US Patent No. 12,244,750 since the US Patent No. 12,244,750 and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, and the difference of the limitations are wordings differently.
For example;
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 10,879,994, Application No. 16/871,705
1. A tablet case for protecting a tablet computer and for supporting the tablet computer on a support surface, the tablet case comprising: a housing sized to receive the tablet computer, the housing having a front surface and a back surface;
a kickstand assembly comprising: a locking high-friction hinge mounted on the housing; and
a kickstand member attached to the high-friction hinge at a proximal end, the kickstand member extending from the proximal end to a distal end; and
wherein the kickstand member is able to move between a collapsed configuration wherein the kickstand member abuts the housing, and at least one extended configuration wherein the kickstand member is axially rotated to extends outwardly from the housing for supporting the housing, upon application of sufficient force to overcome the frictional resistance of the locking high-friction hinge, and it is only friction from the locking high-friction hinge that prevents axial rotation of the kickstand member between the collapsed configuration and the extended configuration.
1. A tablet case for protecting a tablet computer and for supporting the tablet computer on a support surface, the tablet case comprising: a housing sized to receive the tablet computer, the housing having a front surface and a back surface;
a kickstand assembly comprising: a locking high-friction hinge that includes a first end mounted on the housing, and
a second end, the first and second ends being rotatable with respect to each other; and
a kickstand member extending from the proximal end to a distal end, wherein the second end of the high-friction hinge is attached to the proximal end of the kickstand member; and
wherein the kickstand member is able to move between a collapsed configuration wherein the kickstand member abuts the housing, and at least one extended configuration wherein the kickstand member is axially rotated to extends outwardly from the housing for supporting the housing, upon application of sufficient force to overcome the frictional resistance of the locking high-friction hinge, and it is only friction from the locking high-friction hinge that prevents axial rotation of the kickstand member between the collapsed configuration and the extended configuration; and
wherein the first end of the locking high-friction hinge includes a plate having at least one bore, and wherein the housing includes a receiving recess shaped to engage the plate of the locking high-friction hinge, and at least one locking post extends upwardly from the receiving recess to frictionally engage the at least one bore.
5. A tablet case for protecting a tablet computer and for supporting the tablet computer on a support surface, the tablet case comprising: a housing sized to receive the tablet computer, the housing having a front surface and a back surface;
a kickstand assembly comprising: a locking high-friction hinge that includes a first end mounted on the housing, and a second end, the first and second ends being rotatable with respect to each other; and
a kickstand member extending from the proximal end to a distal end, wherein the second end of the high-friction hinge is attached to the proximal end of the kickstand member; and wherein the kickstand member is able to move between a collapsed configuration wherein the kickstand member abuts the housing, and at least one extended configuration wherein the kickstand member is axially rotated to extends outwardly from the housing for supporting the housing, upon application of sufficient force to overcome the frictional resistance of the locking high-friction hinge, and it is only friction from the locking high-friction hinge that prevents axial rotation of the kickstand member between the collapsed configuration and the extended configuration.
1. A tablet case for protecting a tablet computer and for supporting the tablet computer on a support surface, the tablet case comprising: a housing sized to receive the tablet computer, the housing having a front surface and a back surface;
a kickstand assembly comprising: a locking high-friction hinge that includes a first end mounted on the housing, and a second end, the first and second ends being rotatable with respect to each other; and
a kickstand member extending from the proximal end to a distal end, wherein the second end of the high-friction hinge is attached to the proximal end of the kickstand member; and wherein the kickstand member is able to move between a collapsed configuration wherein the kickstand member abuts the housing, and at least one extended configuration wherein the kickstand member is axially rotated to extends outwardly from the housing for supporting the housing, upon application of sufficient force to overcome the frictional resistance of the locking high-friction hinge, and it is only friction from the locking high-friction hinge that prevents axial rotation of the kickstand member between the collapsed configuration and the extended configuration; and
wherein the first end of the locking high-friction hinge includes a plate having at least one bore, and wherein the housing includes a receiving recess shaped to engage the plate of the locking high-friction hinge, and at least one locking post extends upwardly from the receiving recess to frictionally engage the at least one bore.
6. The tablet case of claim 5, wherein the first end of the locking high-friction hinge includes a plate having at least one bore, and wherein the housing includes a receiving recess shaped to engage the plate of the locking high-friction hinge, and at least one locking post extends upwardly from the receiving recess to frictionally engage the at least one bore.
1…….. wherein the first end of the locking high-friction hinge includes a plate having at least one bore, and wherein the housing includes a receiving recess shaped to engage the plate of the locking high-friction hinge, and at least one locking post extends upwardly from the receiving recess to frictionally engage the at least one bore.
7. The tablet case of claim 5, further comprising a locking plate that is mounted to the housing to cover the plate, to lock the plate within the receiving recess, thereby preventing rotation of the first end of the locking high-friction hinge relative to the housing.
2. The tablet case of claim 1, further comprising a locking plate that is mounted to the housing to cover the plate, to lock the plate within a receiving recess, thereby preventing rotation of the first end of the locking high-friction hinge relative to 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20230020122 A) in view of Felix et al. (KR 20170070737 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Kim teaches a tablet case for protecting a tablet computer and for supporting the tablet computer on a support surface (See abstract: a stand case for protecting a mobile phone and, in particular, to a stand case for protecting a mobile phone, wherein a stand arm is mounted on a mobile phone case to stably support a case body in a tilted manner. See Figure 2, reinforcement part 36 is extended away from the main body 10), the tablet case comprising:
a housing sized (Fig. 2, main body housing 10) to receive the tablet computer (Page 2, lines 1-3….the present invention relates to a stand case for protecting a mobile phone, and more particularly, to a stand case for protecting a mobile phone in which a stand arm is mounted on the case to stably and inclinedly support the case body), the housing (Fig. 1, main body housing 10) having a front surface and a back surface (Fig. 1 and 2, the front surface where the mobile phone is insert into the case 10 and the back surface where the reinforcement part 36/stand extends away from the body);
a kickstand assembly (Fig. 2, reinforcement part/stand 36) comprising: a locking hinge (Fig 4, hinge with stop member 20, fig. 5 number 22) mounted on the housing (Page 2 on Description of Embodiments, line 1-page 3, line 10); and
a kickstand member (Fig 2, reinforcement part/stand 36) attached to the hinge (hinge with stop member) at a proximal end (Fig 5, on the side of main body 1), the kickstand member (Fig 2, reinforcement part/stand 36) extending from the proximal end to a distal end (See Fig. 2…Kickstand member 36 extending from the proximal end to distal end so that the body can stand); and
wherein the kickstand member (Fig 2, reinforcement part/stand 36) is able to move between a collapsed configuration wherein the kickstand member abuts the housing (see Fig. 1 collapsed configuration from Fig 2 wherein the kickstand member abuts the housing), and at least one extended configuration wherein the kickstand member is axially rotated to extends outwardly from the housing for supporting the housing (See Fig 2, kickstand member 36 is axially rotated to extends outwardly from the housing for supporting the housing), but does not specifically teach a locking high-friction hinge and upon application of sufficient force to overcome the frictional resistance of the locking high-friction hinge, and it is only friction from the locking high-friction hinge that prevents axial rotation of the kickstand member between the collapsed configuration and the extended configuration.
However, in related art, Felix teaches a locking high-friction hinge (Fig. 3b and page 5 lines 3-13) and upon application of sufficient force to overcome the frictional resistance of the locking high-friction hinge, and it is only friction from the locking high-friction hinge that prevents axial rotation of the kickstand member between the collapsed configuration and the extended configuration (Page 6, lines 13-24, especially lines 18-24 teaches the hinge module 345 according to various embodiments uses a rotating friction type, and is disposed at both ends of the hinge arm, and the cover can be connected to the main body. For rotational friction, the hinge module 345 may include a friction member. The rotational frictional force provided by the hinge module 345 according to various embodiments may be such that the electronic device main body can be supported in a non-moving manner (locking manner) in touch operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Felix’s teaching about a locking high-friction hinge and upon application of sufficient force to overcome the frictional resistance of the locking high-friction hinge, and it is only friction from the locking high-friction hinge that prevents axial rotation of the kickstand member between the collapsed configuration and the extended configuration with Kim’s invention in order to configuration in order for the user of the phone case to move the kickstand from the close position to the open position by using force of the user finger without the need of extra components of the stop members while providing stability to hold the phone case in the standup position on a table for the user to view, as taught by Felix.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Felix teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Felix teaches the tablet case of claim 1, wherein the kickstand member is only attached to the housing via the high friction hinge, and there is no additional support member attached between the kickstand member and the housing (See Fig 4, kickstand member is only attached to the housing via the high friction hinge 450, and there is no additional support member attached between the kickstand member and the housing 400b).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20230020122 A) in view of Felix et al. (KR 20170070737 A), and further in view of Nemoto et al. (US 2004/0249344).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Felix fail to teach the tablet case of claim 1, wherein the distal end of the kickstand member includes a rubber-like head.
However, in related art, Nemoto teaches the tablet case of claim 1, wherein the distal end of the kickstand member includes a rubber-like head (Paragraph [0007]……. Piston head 19 made of an elastic material such as rubber or synthetic resin is mounted on a distal end of piston rod 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Nemoto’s teaching about wherein the distal end of the kickstand member includes a rubber-like head with Kim’s and Felix’s invention in order to create a relatively airtight fit within the barrel.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20230020122 A) in view of Felix et al. (KR 20170070737 A) in view of Nemoto et al. (US 2004/0249344), and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 2012/0262429).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Felix, and Nemoto fail to teach the tablet case of claim 3, wherein the rubber-like head is co-molded with the kickstand member, the remainder of which is constructed of plastic.
However, in related art, Hsu teaches teach the tablet case of claim 3, wherein the rubber-like head is co-molded with the kickstand member, the remainder of which is constructed of plastic (Paragraph [0019]….. the conductive rod 32 is made of metal or plated plastic, and the replaceable head 34 to be in contact with a touch pad or touch screen is covered with a rubber portion that contains a conductive substance, for example carbon powder or metal powder. As shown in FIG. 5, the replaceable head 34 has a central post 46, which is combined with the rubber portion containing the conductive substance by a co-molding process to increase the bonding between the central post 46 and the rubber portion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Hsu’s teaching about wherein the rubber-like head is co-molded with the kickstand member, the remainder of which is constructed of plastic with Kim’s, Felix’s, and Nemoto’s invention in order to enhance productivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach the tablet case of claim 5, wherein the first end of the locking high-friction hinge includes a plate having at least one bore, and wherein the housing includes a receiving recess shaped to engage the plate of the locking high-friction hinge, and at least one locking post extends upwardly from the receiving recess to frictionally engage the at least one bore.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach the tablet case of claim 5, further comprising a locking plate that is mounted to the housing to cover the plate, to lock the plate within the receiving recess, thereby preventing rotation of the first end of the locking high-friction hinge relative to the housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Abed et al. (US Patent #12,453,405), Whitten et al. (US 2021/0315340), Kanas et al. (US 2021/0181793), Mitchell et al. (US 2021/0183541), Huttula et al. (US 2021/0112673), Lai et al. (US Patent #10,645,329), Jabori et al. (US Patent #10,637,265), Chartier et al. (US 2020/0023873), Cavalcante (US 2017/0328514), Widiaman et al. (US 2017/0269633), McKenzie (US Patent #9,755,688), Park et al. (US 2017/0220075), Lee (US 2016/0216742), Cox, III (US 2016/0072933), Quehi et al. (US 2016/0066453), Slipy et al. (US 2013/0286623), and Sliger et al. (US 7,841,575).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132