DETAILED ACTION
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The Amendments and Applicant Arguments submitted on 12/18/2025 have been received and its contents have been carefully considered.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 and 11-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 3, as currently amended, are presented for examination. Claims 5-8, as previously submitted, are now presented again for examination. Claims 2, 4 and 9-10 have been cancelled. Claims 11-14 are new.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wilk et al. (US Publication 2006/0055675).
In re Claim 11, Wilk discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display 402; a support member 404 that supports the display, at least one memory 1050 configured to store instructions; at least one processor 1040 configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising controlling the display; and a housing 408 that accommodates the at least one memory and the at least one processor, wherein the support member includes a base 406, the base includes, on an upper surface thereof, a positioning portion 412, 430 that positions a first input device 420, at least a part of a back surface of the display faces a side surface of the housing (See Figure 4), and an upper surface of the housing includes a slope portion (See Figure 4) being tilted in a thickness direction of the display.
PNG
media_image1.png
671
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US Publication 2002/0068985) in view of Pappas (US Publication 2003/0052857).
In re Claim 1, Oba discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display 4; and a support member 5 that supports the display, wherein the support member includes a base 29, and the base includes, on an upper surface thereof, a positioning portion 29b that positions a first input device 3. Oba also discloses wherein the positioning portion comprises a recess portion 34 that positions the first input device 3, and wherein the first input device 3 comprises a plurality of protruding portions 8, 9 for insertion in the recess portion 34 (See Oba, Figures 29-34).
Oba does not explicitly disclose more than one recess for accepting a plurality of protrusions on the input device. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Pappas discloses an input device 102 comprising a plurality of protrusions 160 to be accepted by a respective plurality of recess portions 360. 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 additional locking features, such as the protrusions and recesses as disclosed in Pappas, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Oba. Providing additional protruding portions/recesses improves stability and reduces unintended lateral movement when the input device is positioned relative to the display apparatus. Oba does teach and suggest projection-recess engagement for positioning. (See Figures 29-34). Pappas further teaches that providing plural recesses to receive respective plural protrusions improves alignment and secures positioning. Combining these would allow for additional locking of the device in desirable positions (e.g. in Oba, Figure 19, 9d for example is shown as an additional protrusion that is similar to protrusions 160 shown in Pappas, and as taught by Pappas could be accepted by a respective recess 360 to assist in holding the input device in the position as shown in Figure 19 of Oba).
In re Claim 5, Oba discloses wherein the positioning portion 9d may comprise “rubber”. Oba, paragraph 0069.
In re Claim 6, Oba discloses wherein the positioning portion includes a first protruding portion 35a.
In re Claim 7, Oba discloses wherein the support member 5 includes a pillar portion 30 extending upward from the base, and the first input device 3 is disposed between the first protruding portion 35a and the pillar portion 30.
In re Claim 8, Oba discloses wherein the first input device is a keyboard 3, a lower surface of the keyboard includes a second protruding portion 8, and, when being used the keyboard 3 is arranged in such a way that a side surface of the first protruding portion 35a and a side surface of the second protruding portion 8 come into contact with each other.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US Publication 2002/0068985), Pappas (US Publication 2003/0052857) and further in view of Lin et al. (US Publication 2014/0211394).
In re Claim 3, Oba discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose a recess that is larger than the input device. However, providing such was very common in the art of computers. For example, Lin discloses a recess 111 that is larger than an input device 30 so as to receive the input device when inserted. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of computers at a time before the effective filing date to have provided a larger recess, as disclosed in Lin, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Oba so as to facilitate the input device and to more effectively hold the input device in the base.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk et al. (US Publication 2006/0055675) taken alone.
In re Claim 12, Wilk discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of the slope portion with respect to the upper surface of the housing is 50% or more. See Wilk, Figure 4 (annotated above). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to have provided a 50% or more sloped surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (50% or more) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05 (II).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk et al. (US Publication 2006/0055675) in view Smith et al. (US Publication 2004/0179332).
In re Claim 13, Wilk discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display 402; and a support member 404 that supports the display, at least one memory 1050 configured to store instructions; at least one processor 1040 configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising controlling the display; and a housing 408 that accommodates the at least one memory and the at least one processor, wherein the support member 404 includes a base 406, the base includes, on an upper surface thereof, a positioning portion 412, 430 that positions a first input device 420.
Wilk does not explicitly disclose a side surface of the housing includes a recess portion that holds a second input device. However, providing a holder for a scanner was not new in the art of portable electronics. For example, Smith discloses a display apparatus comprising a housing, a display 28 and a first input device 34 as well as a plurality of recessed portions 44, 46, 51, 56, wherein the recessed portions are for holding a second input device (paragraphs 0002, 0009, 0024, 0059, 0065, 0068, 0073-0074). 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 holder for a second input device on a side surface of a housing as disclosed in Smith with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Wilk to add to the functionality of the apparatus. Adding holders would allow for the device to be more ergonomic and all-in-one.
In re Claim 14, Smith discloses wherein the second input device may be a scanner and wherein the recess may be for holding a head of the scanner. Smith, Figure 2, paragraphs 0002, 0009, 0024, 0059, 0065, 0068, 0073-0074.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 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