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 .
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 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent No. 6142593 A and Kim hereinafter) in view of Chiang et al (US Pub No. 2009/0180264 A1 and Chiang hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses (figs. 1-17 and annotated figs) a port replicator on which an electronic device is placed, the port replicator comprising: a body (30) on which the electronic device (10) is placed; and a fixing component (40 and 40’) including a base (42) disposed in the body and a side wall (43) extending from the base in a direction intersecting the body and supporting an outer surface of the electronic device (works as a guide rail for the device). Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the fixing component is configured to change a position at which the side wall supports the outer surface of the electronic device by being disposed with an orientation of the base changed. However, Chiang teaches (figs. 1-14) wherein the fixing component (206) is configured to change a position (by rotation) of the side wall (206b) by being disposed with an orientation of the base (206a) changed (shows in figs 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fixing component to change a position of the side wall of Chiang to device of Kim in order to face in two opposite directions such that expansion cards of relatively short length and relatively long length can be respectively secured on the expansion card fastening mechanism (Chiang and [0019])
Regarding Claim 2, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the outer surface of the electronic device includes a first outer surface (FS) and a second outer surface (SS) opposed to the first outer surface, and the fixing component includes a first fixing component (FC) that is disposed along the first outer surface and supports the first outer surface, and a second fixing component (SC) that is disposed along the second outer surface and supports the second outer surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
567
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 2. Kim further teaches wherein the first fixing component is opposed to the second fixing component.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the base has a rectangular shape having a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction in plan view, and the side wall is disposed on one end side in the lateral direction along the longitudinal direction (fig.4).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the body includes a recess (50) in which the base is disposed, and a shape of the recess corresponds to an outer shape of the base in a plan view (fig.4).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 5. Kim further teaches wherein the recess has a rectangular shape in plan view (fig.4).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the side wall includes a plurality of walls extending in different directions (see annotated fig above).
PNG
media_image2.png
722
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 7. Kim further teaches wherein the plurality of walls are disposed in a polygonal shape in plan view (see annotated fig above).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 8. Kim further teaches wherein the plurality of walls are four walls, and the four walls are disposed in a quadrangular shape in plan view (see annotated fig above).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the body includes a support (see annotated fig above) that extends in a direction intersecting an extending direction of the side wall that supports the outer surface of the electronic device and supports the outer surface of the electronic device (see fig.4).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 1. Chiang further teaches wherein the change of the orientation of the base is a rotation of the base relative to the body (shows in figs 9-13).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the rotatable fixing components of Chiang to device of Kim in order to enhance the flexibility of the body for fastening electronic devices having different sizes (Chiang and [0019])
Regarding Claim 13, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 12. Chiang further teaches wherein the rotation of the base relative to the body is in increments of 180 degrees. (shows in figs 9-13).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the 180 degrees rotatable fixing components of Chiang to device of Kim in order to enhance the flexibility of the body for fastening electronic devices having different sizes (Chiang and [0019])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al in view of Chiang et al and further in view of Stacey et al (US Pub No. 2009/0294617 A1 and Stacey hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 11, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 3. Kim further discloses wherein the first fixing component includes a first base disposed in the body and a first side wall extending from the first base and supporting the first outer surface, the second fixing component includes a second base disposed in the body and a second side wall extending from the second base and supporting the second outer surface (see annotated figs above) but fails to disclose the fixing component is configured to change a distance between the first side wall and the second side wall by being disposed with orientations of the first base and the second base changed. However, Stacey teaches (figs 1-4) the fixing component (103a-b) is configured to change a distance (changed by rack 203) between the first side wall and the second side wall by being disposed with orientations of the first base and the second base changed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Stacey as claimed above to device of Kim/Chiang in order to provide various different users who may have different location preferences, and also allows for great flexibility (Stacey, [0029])
PNG
media_image3.png
652
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al in view of Chiang et al and further in view of Kimura et al (US Pub No. 7108530 B2 and Kimura hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 14, Kim/Chiang discloses the port replicator according to Claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the rotation of the base relative to the body is in increments of 90 degrees. However, Kimura teaches (fig.10) wherein the rotation of the base (17) relative to the body (11) is in increments of 90 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the 180 degrees rotatable fixing components of Kimura to device of Kim/Chiang in order to provide a structure that requires a large additional space suitable for an irregular shape (Kimura, and col 4, lines 50-55).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim/Chiang/Kimura discloses the port replicator according to Claim 14. Kim teaches various sizes (at least two size wide wise ) of portable devices . Chiang teaches various sizes (at least two size length wise ) of portable devices and Kimura teaches different shapes of portable devices wherein the rotation of the base makes the fixing component capable of accommodating electronic devices (figs 9-10) of four different external sizes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the 180 degrees rotatable fixing components of Kimura to device of Kim/Chiang in order to provide different structures to accommodate different electronic devices of sizes and shapes (Kimura, and col 4, lines 50-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
