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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “docking button extending from a remainder of the anchoring mount” (Claim 1, lines 6-7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 and 18-20 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, in lines 4-7, recites “the rotatable mount further comprises … b) a docking button extending from a remainder of the anchoring mount”. This limitation is confusing because it is not clear what the term “remainder” refers to, in particular in the context of the anchoring mount and the docking button. Ordinary meanings of “remainder” include “a part of something that is left over when other parts have been completed, used, or dealt with”, “an interest in an estate that becomes effective in possession only when a prior interest (devised at the same time) ends”, and “dispose of (a book left unsold) at a reduced price” (Oxford dictionary). However, said meanings do not seem to clearly and unequivocally define the scope for “the remainder of the anchoring mount”. For instance, from the claim language used above It is not clear whether the docking button is defined to be a part of the anchoring mount or, on the contrary, it is excluded from being a part of the anchoring mount. Figure 2D of the disclosure shows docking button 158 attached to the mobile phone 150 and/or case 152 but not to the anchoring mount 106. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as: the rotatable mount further comprises … b) a docking button configured to be attached to the anchoring mount.
Claims 2-11 and 18-20 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles et al. (US 11977412 B2, and Miles hereinafter) in view of Supran et al. (US 8553408 B2, and Supran hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1 (as best understood), Miles discloses a dock for a mobile device, the dock comprising:
a base (130, fig. 1);
a rotatable mount (450, fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the base (around axis 135, fig. 1), the rotatable mount comprising an anchoring mount (450, fig. 3 excluding 430) and a bottom device receiver (430, fig. 3) coupled to the anchoring mount (fig. 3), wherein the rotatable mount further comprises either
a) a docking button indentation defined in the anchoring mount (defined by sidewall that contains 410A through 410-D, fig. 3) and configured for receiving a docking button (350, fig. 3) coupled to the mobile device or
b) a docking button extending from a remainder of the anchoring mount,
wherein the bottom device receiver is configured to receive a bottom portion of the mobile device or a case containing the mobile device,
wherein at least one of the bottom device receiver, the docking button indentation, or the docking button comprises a plurality of electrical contacts (430, fig. 3) configured for making contact with contacts on the mobile device or the case containing the mobile device (435, fig. 3); and
a cord (1316, fig. 13) electrically coupled to at least one of the electrical contacts (figs. 17 and 19B, “With reference to FIG. 19B, a pogo pin contact 430 connects with circuit board 1306”, Col. 23, ln. 42-43) extending into the base (fig. 13), and configured for coupling to a power source, a data source, or a data receiver (“connector 1312 helps mitigate data loss and/or power loss”).
Miles does not explicitly disclose the base configured for attachment to a wall or other surface.
Supran discloses a base (19, fig. 6A) configured for attachment to a wall or other surface (20, fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miles to incorporate the teachings of Supran so that the base is configured for attachment to a wall or other surface, in order to allow the base to be placed in locations that cover a wide range of options to the users depending on their specific needs (“Horizontal and vertical surfaces where the base 19 may be mounted maybe found in homes, buildings and vehicles such as automobiles, motor homes, boats and aircraft”, Col. 11, ln. 58-61 of Supran).
Regarding Claim 4 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein the docking button indentation has a polygonal lateral cross-sectional shape.
Miles/Supran does not explicitly disclose the docking button indentation has a polygonal lateral cross-sectional shape.
However, Miles discloses the rotatable mount defining the docking button indentation has, alternatively polygonal shape (“base mount 450 are indicated in FIG. 4 (for example) as comprising a substantially circular shape, other example embodiments may comprise different shapes, such as substantially triangular shapes, substantially rectangular shapes, elliptical shapes, and so forth”, Col. 10, ln. 34-38 of Miles).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miles so that the docking button indentation has a polygonal lateral cross-sectional shape, in order to provide an alternative visual aesthetic and design that enhances user’s grip/holding. Furthermore, absent disclosure of a functional role, a change in shape would be considered an aesthetic design change. Aesthetic design changes have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). See also MPEP § 2144.04, I).
Regarding Claim 5 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 4, wherein the polygonal lateral cross-sectional shape is selected from triangular, square, rectangular, rhomboidal, trapezoidal, pentagonal, hexagonal, octagonal, or decagonal (“triangular shapes … rectangular shapes… and so forth”, Col. 10, ln. 34-38 of Miles. See rejection of Claim 4 above).
Regarding Claim 7 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein the rotatable mount or base is capable of, and limited to, a rotation of 180 degrees. (“portable computing device 150 operating within enclosure 120, may be permitted to rotate or flip about axis 135”, Col. 6, ln. 42-44 of Miles).
Regarding Claim 10 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein the docking button indentation includes a magnet or magnetically-attracted piece (2000, fig. 20B of Miles) configured for magnetically coupling to a magnet or magnetically-attracted piece of the mobile device or case containing the mobile device to removably attach the mobile device to the dock (“Magnets 2000 in the base mount 450 create a magnetic attraction force with corresponding metallic elements 2002 in the case mount 350”, Col. 24, ln. 47-49 of Miles).
Regarding Claim 11 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses a system, comprising: the dock of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and the mobile device (150, fig. 1 of Miles).
Regarding Claim 12, Miles discloses dock for a mobile device, the dock comprising:
a base (130, fig. 1) configured for attachment to a wall or other surface;
a rotatable mount (450, fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the base (around axis 135, fig. 1), the rotatable mount comprising an anchoring mount (450, fig. 3 excluding 430) and a bottom device receiver (430, fig. 3) coupled to the anchoring mount (fig. 3), the anchoring mount defining a docking button indentation (defined by sidewall that contains 410A through 410-D, fig. 3) for receiving a docking button coupled to the mobile device,
wherein the bottom device receiver comprises a plurality of electrical contacts (430, fig. 3) configured for making contact with contacts on the mobile device or the case containing the mobile device (435, fig. 3); and
a cord (1316, fig. 13) electrically coupled to at least one of the electrical contacts (figs. 17 and 19B, “With reference to FIG. 19B, a pogo pin contact 430 connects with circuit board 1306”, Col. 23, ln. 42-43), extending into the base (fig. 13), and configured for coupling to a power source, a data source, or a data receiver (“connector 1312 helps mitigate data loss and/or power loss”).
Miles does not explicitly disclose the base configured for attachment to a wall or other surface.
Supran discloses a base (19, fig. 6A) configured for attachment to a wall or other surface (20, fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miles to incorporate the teachings of Supran so that the base is configured for attachment to a wall or other surface, in order to allow the base to be placed in locations that cover a wide range of options to the users depending on their specific needs (“Horizontal and vertical surfaces where the base 19 may be mounted maybe found in homes, buildings and vehicles such as automobiles, motor homes, boats and aircraft”, Col. 11, ln. 58-61 of Supran).
Regarding Claim 15, Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 12, wherein the docking button indentation includes a magnet or magnetically-attracted piece (2000, fig. 20B of Miles) configured for magnetically coupling to a magnet or magnetically-attracted piece of the mobile device or case containing the mobile device to removably attach the mobile device to the dock (“Magnets 2000 in the base mount 450 create a magnetic attraction force with corresponding metallic elements 2002 in the case mount 350”, Col. 24, ln. 47-49 of Miles).
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Supran in view of Stein (US 20120092377 A1, and Stein hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 2 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the base comprises a wall box configured for insertion into a wall or other surface.
Stein discloses a base (including 22 and 36, fig. 3A. See also figs. 1A-C) comprises a wall box (22, fig. 3A) configured for insertion into a wall or other surface (34, fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Stein so that the base comprises a wall box configured for insertion into a wall or other surface, in order to providing room to store and hide power and/or audio cables while securely mounting the mobile device on the wall (“various configurations for connecting the dock device to the in-room audio system are possible, such as via in-wall junction boxes”, [0012] of Stein).
Regarding Claim 3 (as best understood), Miles/Supran/ Stein discloses the dock of claim 2, wherein the base further comprises a power supply (fig. 13, “a circuit board 1300 in the stand 130 carries circuitry for performing a variety of operations (e.g., power conditioning, power distribution”, Col. 19, ln.9-11 of Miles) or a power over internet (PoE) injector, wherein the power supply or PoE injector is electrically coupled to the cord (fig. 13, “cable 1316 electrically connects circuit board 1300”, Col. 19, ln. 20-21 of Miles).
Regarding Claim 13, Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 12 but does not explicitly disclose the base comprises a wall box configured for insertion into a wall or other surface.
Stein discloses a base (including 22 and 36, fig. 3A. See also figs. 1A-C) comprises a wall box (22, fig. 3A) configured for insertion into a wall or other surface (34, fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Stein so that the base comprises a wall box configured for insertion into a wall or other surface, in order to providing room to store and hide power and/or audio cables while securely mounting the mobile device on the wall (“various configurations for connecting the dock device to the in-room audio system are possible, such as via in-wall junction boxes”, [0012] of Stein).
Regarding Claim 14, Miles/Supran/ Stein discloses the dock of claim 13, wherein the base further comprises a power supply (fig. 13, “a circuit board 1300 in the stand 130 carries circuitry for performing a variety of operations (e.g., power conditioning, power distribution”, Col. 19, ln.9-11 of Miles) or a power over internet (PoE) injector, wherein the power supply or PoE injector is electrically coupled to the cord (fig. 13, “cable 1316 electrically connects circuit board 1300”, Col. 19, ln. 20-21 of Miles).
Claims 6, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Supran in view of Ido et al. (US 5629833 A, and Ido hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 6 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose one of the base or rotatable mount defines a track and another one of the base or rotatable mount defines a pin arranged for traveling along the track to limit rotation of the rotatable mount relative to the base.
Ido discloses a base (5, fig. 4) defines a track (14, fig. 4) and a rotatable mount (16, fig. 4) defines a pin (including 20, 21, and 22, fig. 4) arranged for traveling along the track to limit rotation of the rotatable mount relative to the base (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Ido so that one of the base or rotatable mount defines a track and another one of the base or rotatable mount defines a pin arranged for traveling along the track to limit rotation of the rotatable mount relative to the base, in order to facilitate rotation in the same plane of the mobile device. This modification could be implemented by providing pins to the rotatable mount of Miles and corresponding tracks to the base of Supran (see Miles as modified by Supran in claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 8 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the rotatable mount or base is capable of, and limited to, a rotation of 90 degrees
Ido discloses a rotatable mount (16, fig. 4) is capable of, and limited to, a rotation of 90 degrees (fig. 6, “to rotate the panel unit 90 degrees between the first and second states”, Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Ido so that the rotatable mount or base is capable of, and limited to, a rotation of 90 degrees, in order to facilitate switching between horizontal and vertical layouts of the keyboard displayed to the user (“the key input section is made longer in the horizontal direction … In a case where documents are created, however, many characters can be inputted in a single line but the number of lines is limited”, Col. 1, ln. 22-33).
Regarding Claim 16, Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 12 does not explicitly disclose one of the base or rotatable mount defines a track and another one of the base or rotatable mount defines a pin arranged for traveling along the track to limit rotation of the rotatable mount relative to the base.
Ido discloses a base (5, fig. 4) defines a track (14, fig. 4) and a rotatable mount (16, fig. 4) defines a pin (including 20, 21, and 22, fig. 4) arranged for traveling along the track to limit rotation of the rotatable mount relative to the base (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Ido so that one of the base or rotatable mount defines a track and another one of the base or rotatable mount defines a pin arranged for traveling along the track to limit rotation of the rotatable mount relative to the base, in order to facilitate rotation in the same plane of the mobile device. This modification could be implemented by providing pins to the rotatable mount of Miles and corresponding tracks to the base of Supran (see Miles as modified by Supran in claim 12 above).
Claim 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Supran in view of Kim (US 20130033807 A1, and Kim hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 9 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the base and rotatable mount comprise at least one detent for maintaining at least one desired rotation position of the rotatable mount relative to the base.
Kim discloses a base (14, fig. 5A) and rotatable mount (24, fig. 5A) comprise at least one detent for maintaining at least one desired rotation position of the rotatable mount relative to the base (figs 5A-B, “a detent hinge that permits the second portion 24, and the remainder of the mounting arm 16, to remain at any of a number of predetermined rotational positions”, [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that the base and rotatable mount comprise at least one detent for maintaining at least one desired rotation position of the rotatable mount relative to the base, in order to provide multiple stable viewing angles that the user can choose from (“This feature allows the user to adjust the viewing angle of the screen of the electronic device 11 so as to position the screen at an optimal viewing angle for that particular user”, [0034] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 17, Miles/Supran discloses the dock of claim 12 but does not explicitly disclose the base and rotatable mount comprise at least one detent for maintaining at least one desired rotation position of the rotatable mount relative to the base.
Kim discloses a base (14, fig. 5A) and rotatable mount (24, fig. 5A) comprise at least one detent for maintaining at least one desired rotation position of the rotatable mount relative to the base (figs 5A-B, “a detent hinge that permits the second portion 24, and the remainder of the mounting arm 16, to remain at any of a number of predetermined rotational positions”, [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that the base and rotatable mount comprise at least one detent for maintaining at least one desired rotation position of the rotatable mount relative to the base, in order to provide multiple stable viewing angles that the user can choose from (“This feature allows the user to adjust the viewing angle of the screen of the electronic device 11 so as to position the screen at an optimal viewing angle for that particular user”, [0034] of Kim).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles and Supran in view of Johnson (US 9915976 B2, and Johnson hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 18 (as best understood), Miles/Supran discloses a method for attaching a mobile device to a wall or other surface, the method comprising:
removably attaching the mobile device to the dock of claim 1 (fig. 1 of Miles; “portable computing device 150 within an enclosure 120. In embodiments, such as embodiment 100, enclosure 120 may be secured to a case mount (not shown in FIG. 1) which, in turn, may be fixedly secured to base mount 450”, Col. 6, ln. 28-31) which is attached to the wall or other surface (Miles as modified by Supran, see rejection of Claim 1 above);
Miles/Supran does not explicitly disclose rotating the mobile device, while attached to the dock, relative to the wall or other surface.
Johnson discloses a method comprising rotating a mobile device, while attached to the dock, relative to a surface (fig. 1, “Rotating the docking tray 101 (and the tablet device 201 if mounted therein) about the rotation axis changes the orientation of the docking tray 101 (and the tablet device 201 if mounted therein)”, Col. 6, ln. 58-61).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles and Supran to incorporate the teachings of Johnson so that it further comprises rotating the mobile device, while attached to the dock, relative to the wall or other surface, in order to allow users to choose the aspect ratio and angle at which information of the mobile device is being displayed.
Regarding Claim 19 (as best understood), Miles/Supran/Johnson discloses the method of claim 18 but does not explicitly disclose rotating the mobile device comprises rotating the mobile device at least 90 degrees.
Miles/Supran/Johnson does not explicitly disclose rotating the mobile device comprises rotating the mobile device at least 90 degrees.
Johnson further discloses rotating the mobile device comprises rotating the mobile device at least 90 degrees (“The docking tray 101 may be rotated a full 360 degrees about the rotation axis”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miles, Supran, and Johnson to incorporate the additional teachings of Johnson so that rotating the mobile device comprises rotating the mobile device at least 90 degrees, in order to provide users the convenience of alternating between landscape and portrait orientation.
Regarding Claim 20 (as best understood), Miles/Supran/Johnson discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising charging the mobile device using the dock (“may facilitate communications with a wired network, facilitate charging”, Col. 6, ln. 34-35 of Miles).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, 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.
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841