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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Hayato (JP 2012237379 A)
Regarding claim 1, Hayato teaches a cover component (1 cover) comprising; a protrusion (11A part) is disposed at a position to abut on at least one fastening member (7 screw) exposed on a back surface of an electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to the back surface of the electronic apparatus (Fig 1, pg 2 ¶7-8)
Regarding claim 3, Hayato teaches cover component according to claim 1, wherein: the electronic apparatus includes a recess (Not numbered, recess where screw is attached, Fig 3) in which a head of the fastening member (7 screw) is disposed (Fig 3), and at least one portion at a tip of the protrusion is larger than a diameter of the head and smaller than a diameter of the recess (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 1,wherein the protrusion (11A) is larger than a hole of a head of the fastening member (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, Hayato teaches an electronic apparatus to which a cover component (1 cover) is attachable, the electronic apparatus comprising; a fastening member disposed on a back surface of the electronic apparatus (7 screw), wherein the fastening member is disposed at a position to abut on a protrusion formed on the cover component (11A part) when the cover component is attached to the back surface of the electronic apparatus. (Fig 1, pg 2 ¶7-8)
Regarding claim 12, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 3, wherein the protrusion (11A) is larger than a hole of a head of the fastening member (Fig 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayato in view of Casio (https://www.ebay.com/itm/266653378694 and https://www.calculator.org/calculators/Casio_fx-115MS.html)
Regarding claim 2, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 1.
Hayato fails to teach the cover component is formed to be elongated, corresponding to a longitudinal direction of the electronic apparatus, in the longitudinal direction, the cover component includes an engaging portion engaging with the electronic apparatus at both ends in the longitudinal direction, and the protrusion is disposed at a center in the longitudinal direction. However, Kiyono teaches the cover component (see annotated Fig below) is formed to be elongated (see annotated Fig below), corresponding to a longitudinal direction of the electronic apparatus (see annotated Fig below), in the longitudinal direction, the cover component includes an engaging portion (see annotated Fig below) engaging with the electronic apparatus at both ends in the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig below), and the protrusion is disposed at a center in the longitudinal direction. (see annotated Fig below) Hayato and Casio are both in the industry of cover components for calculators, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato to include the engaging portion structure of Casio in order to removably couple the cover to the device with a press fit in a secure manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 1,
Hayato fails to teach the protrusion is disposed at a plurality of positions. However, Casio teaches the protrusion is disposed at a plurality of positions (see annotated Fig above). Hayato and Casio are both in the industry of cover components for calculators, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato to include the engaging portion structure of Hayato in order to removably couple the cover to the device with a press fit in a secure manner.
Regarding claim 7, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 1, where a main body of the cover component and the protrusions are formed of the same material (Protrusions are molded of the same material as the cover, see annotated Fig above) Hayato and Casio are both in the industry of cover components for calculators, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato to include the engaging portion structure of Hayato in order to have a sturdy protrusion without risk of it detaching with regular use.
Regarding claim 10, Hayato in view of Casio teaches the cover component according to claim 2, wherein: the electronic apparatus includes a recess (Not numbered, recess where screw is attached, Fig 3) in which a head of the fastening member (7 screw) is disposed (Fig 3), and at least one portion at a tip of the protrusion is larger than a diameter of the head and smaller than a diameter of the recess (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 11, Hayato in view of Casio teach the cover component according to claim 2, wherein the protrusion (11A) is larger than a hole of a head of the fastening member (Fig 3).
Claims 5, 8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayato in view of Nicolosi (US 7042713 B2)
Regarding claim 5, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 1.
Hayato fails to teach the protrusion is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus. However, Nicolosi teaches the protrusion (protrusions from the case that have holes 81 and 82) is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus (in order for the case to slide, the protrusion cannot be in contact with the electronic device shown in the storage configuration of Fig 3 & 4, col 4 lines 32-44). Hayato and Nicolosi are both in the industry of removable electronic device cases, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato to include space in between the electronic device and Nicolosi in order to allow for the case to attach and detach without damaging the device over time (col 4 lines 10-13)
Regarding claim 8, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 1.
Hayato fails to teach the protrusion can support the electronic apparatus by abutting on the fastening member. However, Nicolosi teaches the protrusion (protrusions from the case that have holes 81 and 82) can support the electronic apparatus by abutting on the fastening member (Fig 2, col 4 lines 10-24). Hayato and Nicolosi are both in the industry of removable electronic device cases, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato to include space in between the electronic device of Nicolosi in order to allow for the case to be used while sitting flat on a surface and attached to the case. (col 4 lines 10-13)
Regarding claim 14, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 3.
Hayato fails to teach the protrusion is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus. However, Nicolosi teaches the protrusion (protrusions from the case that have holes 81 and 82) is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus (in order for the case to slide, the protrusion cannot be in contact with the electronic device shown in the storage configuration of Fig 3 & 4, col 4 lines 32-44). Hayato and Nicolosi are both in the industry of removable electronic device cases, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato to include space in between the electronic device of Nicolosi in order to allow for the case to attach and detach without damaging the device over time (col 4 lines 10-13)
Regarding claim 15, Hayato teaches the cover component according to claim 4.
Hayato fails to teach the protrusion is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus. However, Nicolosi teaches the protrusion (protrusions from the case that have holes 81 and 82) is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus (in order for the case to slide, the protrusion cannot be in contact with the electronic device shown in the storage configuration of Fig 3 & 4, col 4 lines 32-44). Hayato and Nicolosi are both in the industry of removable electronic device cases, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato to include space in between the electronic device and Nicolosi in order to allow for the case to attach and detach without damaging the device over time (col 4 lines 10-13)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayato in view of Casio and further in view of Nicolosi.
Regarding claim 13, Hayato in view of Casio teach the cover component according to claim 2.
Hayato in view of Casio fail to teach the protrusion is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus. However, Nicolosi teaches the protrusion (protrusions from the case that have holes 81 and 82) is formed at such a height that the protrusion does not abut on the electronic apparatus when the cover component is attached to a front surface of the electronic apparatus (in order for the case to slide, the protrusion cannot be in contact with the electronic device shown in the storage configuration of Fig 3 & 4, col 4 lines 32-44). Hayato, Casio, and Nicolosi are all in the industry of removable electronic device cases, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hayato and Casio to include space in between the electronic device of Nicolosi in order to allow for the case to attach and detach without damaging the device over time (col 4 lines 10-13)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELISA SASSERATH whose telephone number is (703)756-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/HUNG S. BUI/ Acting Patent Examiner, 2841/2800
Prosecution Insights