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 “plurality of weights”, “first weight of the plurality of weights is positioned lower than the second stand gear in a landscape orientation of the display module”, and “second weight of the plurality of weights is positioned lower than the second stand gear in a portrait orientation of the display module” (Claim 13, ln. 1-3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. More in detail, although figure 5 shows a plurality of weight elements 309 it appears that only one weight (the central instance of 309), of said plurality of weights, satisfy the condition of being positioned lower than the second stand gear 303(b) in the landscape and portrait orientations shown in figs. 6-7.
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 § 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, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-13 are rejected under d35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 12305796 B2, and Chu hereinafter) in view of Fenelon (US 9271572 B2, and Fenelon hereinafter) and Chen et al. (US 7391606 B2, and Chen hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, A display device comprising:
a display module (602, fig. 6) configured to output an image (“display unit”, Col. 6, ln. 45);
a rotation driver (606, fig. 6) located on a rear surface of the display module (fig. 6); and
a stand (604, fig. 6),
wherein the rotation driver includes:
a main body gear (614, fig. 6) rotating together with the display module (“the display unit 602 may be coupled to the mutilated driving gear 614”, Col. 7, ln. 21-22);
a reverse gear rotating in engagement (616, fig. 6) with the main body gear (“upon rotation of the display unit 602, the mutilated driving gear 614 may actuate the driven gear 616”, Col. 7, ln. 23-24);
a first stand gear (right instance of 618, fig. 6) rotating in engagement with the reverse gear (“driven gear 616 to initiate rotation of the pair of pinion gears 618”, Col. 7, ln. 24-25); and
a second stand gear (left instance of 618, fig. 6) rotating in engagement with the first stand gear (“driven gear 616 to initiate rotation of the pair of pinion gears 618”, Col. 7, ln. 24-25), and
wherein the stand is coupled to the first stand gear and the second stand gear (fig. 6).
Chu does not explicitly disclose a pair of stands extending diagonally downward from the rotation driver, the pair of stands are respectively coupled to the first stand gear and the second stand gear to be rotated, and wherein a gear ratio of the first stand gear and the second stand gear is 1:1 such that the rotation driver simultaneously adjusts respectively angles of the pair of stands equally during rotation of the display module.
Fenelon discloses a gear system wherein the gear ratio of a first gear (47, fig. 4B) and a second gear (49, fig. 4B) is 1:1 (fig. 4B).
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 Chu to incorporate the teachings of Fenelon so that a gear ratio of the first stand gear and the second stand gear is 1:1, in order for the torque exerted on the teeth of each gears is evenly exerted.
Chen discloses a pair of stands (21 and 22, fig. 1B) extending diagonally downward from the rotation driver (fig. 1B), wherein the pair of stands rotate (fig. 2A-2B).
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 Chu and Fenelon to incorporate the teachings of Chen so that it comprises a pair of stands extending diagonally downward from the rotation driver, wherein the pair of stands rotate, in order to also allow the device to be capable of being carried or hung on a wall in an convenient way (Col. 1, ln. 6-8, and fig. 3A of Chen). This modification would be implemented by substituting the single stand (604) of Chu by the pair of stands of Chen and Fenelon and having them respectively coupled to the first stand gear and the second stand gear rather than to toothed tracks (610, fig. 6 of Chu) so that height adjustment required for rotation of the display module is realized through the angle adjustment of the pair stands. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that connecting the gears this way produces a similar effect of adjusting the height while the rotation driver simultaneously adjusts respective angles of the pair of stands equally during rotation of the display module, and would be considered an obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 3, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the reverse gear is larger than the main body gear (fig. 6 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 4, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose a gear ratio of the main body gear and the reverse gear is 3:1.
However, Chu discloses a gear ratio of the main body gear and the reverse gear is 2:1 (see first fraction 8/16 in Col. 9, formula (1) of Chu, that represents the ratio of number of teeth of the first wheel of driven gear to the number of teeth of the mutilated driving gear). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify said ratio to a value of 3:1, since it would be considered a mere change in proportion. Changes in size/proportion have been found to carry no patentable weight (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A). A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to do such modification as part of an optimization process that achieves a height increment suitable for rotation of a display module of given dimensions. (“by varying a gear ratio between the mutilated driving gear 712, the driven gear 714, the first pinion gear 716-1, and the second pinion gear 716-2, a height increment based on a size of a display unit (not shown) may be achieved”, Col. 9, ln. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 5, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the first stand gear and the second stand gear are arranged side by side in a horizontal direction (fig. 6 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 7, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the first stand gear and the second stand gear rotate while engaged with each other (Chu as modified; fig. 6 and “mutilated driving gear 614 may actuate the driven gear 616 to initiate rotation of the pair of pinion gears 618”, Col. 7, ln. 24-25 of Chu) and are positioned within a rotation radius of the stands (Chu as modified would have first and second stand gears located within a rotation radius of the stands which is equivalent to the length of elements 21 and 22 as shown in fig. 1B of Chen).
Regarding Claim 8, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising a weight (including 710, fig. 7 of Chu and spindle corresponding to 614, fig. 6 of Chu, in view of “gears may be rotatably mounted on the base plate 612, for example, by spindles”, Col. 6 ln. 67 through Col. 7, ln. 1 of Chu) located lower than the second stand gear (716-2, fig. 7 of Chu, in view of “Details pertaining to the gear assembly 606 will be described in detail in conjunction with FIG. 7”, Col. 7, ln. 35-37 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 9, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the pair of stands includes a leg portion (Chu as modified would include leg portions 210 and 220 shown in fig. 1B of Chen) extending outward in a horizontal direction from the rotation driver (fig. 1B of Chen) and a base portion (211 and 221, fig. 1B of Chen) extending from the leg portion in a forward direction (fig. 1B of Chen).
Regarding Claim 10, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 9, wherein the leg portion is inclined and extends toward the rear surface of the display module (Chu as modified by the pair of stands 21 and 22 shown in fig. 1B of Chen include portions 210 and 220 inclined and forming an angle ϴ11, both elements extend toward from a horizontal surface S towards the rear surface 11 of the display module, fig. 1B of Chen).
Regarding Claim 12, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a controller (726, fig. 7 of Chu) located on the rear surface of the display module (fig. 7 of Chu); and
a back cover (706, fig. 7 of Chu) covering the rotation driver and the controller (fig. 7 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 13, Chu/Fenelon/Chen discloses the display device of claim 8 but , wherein the weight is one of a plurality of weights (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein a first weight (710, fig. 7 of Chu) of the plurality of weights is positioned lower than the second stand gear in a landscape orientation of the display module (fig. 7 of Chu) and a second weight (spindle corresponding to 614, fig. 6 of Chu. See rejection of claim 8 above) of the plurality of weights is positioned lower than the second stand gear in a portrait orientation of the display module (fig. 6 of Chu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 11,
Regarding Claim 11, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “the rubber disposed at a first stand of the pair of stands is fixed at the base portion to grip the supporting surface, and wherein the rubber disposed at a second stand of the pair of stands is rotatable with respect to an axis of the base portion so as to allow the second stand to move along the supporting surface while the first stand remains secured on the supporting surface in response to operation of the rotation driver”. Park (US 20100309618 A1), Cho (US 6651943 B2), Chen (US 8152113 B2), Robling (US 7264216 B1), Perelli (US 20210059401 A1), and Xing (US 12331873 B1) are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a rubber, a stand, a base portion, and/or a supporting surface. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
For instance, Park discloses a display stand comprising rubber inserted into a base portion, and the rubber includes rotary rubber (“a rubber packing (not shown) may be attached to the horizontal shaft 22”, [0096]; fig. 1) inserted into one side of a pair of stands (22, fig. 1); however, it does not teach the rubber disposed at a first stand of the pair of stands is fixed at the base portion to grip the supporting surface, and wherein the rubber disposed at a second stand of the pair of stands is rotatable with respect to an axis of the base portion so as to allow the second stand to move along the supporting surface while the first stand remains secured on the supporting surface in response to operation of the rotation driver. Cho also a stand including rubber inserted into a base portion (15a, fig. 3; “15a formed of a rubber material”, Col. 3, ln. 19) but it does not, alone or in combination, cure the deficiencies of Park.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that “Specifically, the "left and right instances" of the pair of pinion gears 618 of Chu are required to have an uneven gear ratio in order to allow for the rotational movement of the display while being engaged with the rack gear. (See, e.g., Chu Figures 8A-8C). It would not be possible, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated, to modify Chu such that the left and right instances of the pinion gears have a gear ratio of 1:1 as this would prohibit rotational movement of the display in Chu”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chu discloses a display unit pivotably coupled to a gear assembly (fig. 8(b); “the display unit 802 may be pivotably coupled to the gear assembly 808”, Col. 10, ln. 21-22) so that rotation of the display unit has the effect of rotating a mutilated driving gear, which in turn rotates pinion gears (“Referring now to FIG. 8(b), when the display unit 802 is rotated clockwise as depicted by arrow R, the gear assembly 808 of the display device 800 may get actuated. The gear assembly 808 may be similar to the gear assembly 700 … The rotation of the display unit 802 may rotate a mutilated driving gear (not shown) of the gear train 812 which may in turn rotate a pair of pinion gears (not shown)”, Col. 10, ln. 16-24). Chu recognizes that during rotation, the height of the display unit must be increased, in order to avoid collision with a base of the stand or a surface on which the display is placed (figs. 8(a)-8(c); “Table 1 above provides exemplary height increment that may be achieved by display units of different sizes to avoid collision with the surface ‘S’, while rotating”, Col. 9, ln. 60-62 and “As the pair of pinion gears are meshed with a pair of toothed racks (not shown), the display unit 802 may be lifted upwards in a direction depicted by arrow U”, Col. 10, ln. 24-26). Chu does not explicitly disclose that “the pair of pinion gears 618 of Chu are required to have an uneven gear ratio in order to allow for the rotational movement of the display while being engaged with the rack gear”, as argued by Applicant. Instead, Chu explicitly discloses that the gear ratio determines the height increment that may be achieved by the display unit (“by varying a gear ratio between the mutilated driving gear 712, the driven gear 714, the first pinion gear 716-1, and the second pinion gear 716-2, a height increment based on a size of a display unit (not shown) may be achieved. Details pertaining to achieving the height increment are described with reference to FIG. 8”, Col. 9, ln. 9-15 and “the gear ratio of the gear assembly 808 of the present subject matter may facilitate a height increment of more than 100 millimetres for the display unit 802 of 24 inches. Accordingly, based on an aspect ratio of the display device 802, the gear ratio of the gear assembly 808 may be varied to move the display unit 802 by comfortably”, Col. 10, ln. 5-10).
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 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