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 § 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIANG et al. (US 2020/0285273) in view of Saito et al. (US 5731829).
Regarding claim 1 LIANG discloses:
A laptop computer, comprising:
a main body (e.g. 1 FIG.1B);
a display unit (e.g. 2 FIG.1B), having a display (e.g. 22 FIG.1B) and a connecting module (e.g. 2, 401 FIG.2A) connected to each other, wherein the connecting module is pivotally connected to the main body (e.g. shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C) and has a housing (e.g. 29 FIG.1B), a front panel (e.g. front face of 2 FIG.1B) connected to the housing, and a movable member (e.g. 401 FIG.2D) movably disposed on the bottom side of the front panel (e.g. shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C);
a connecting member (e.g. 3 FIG.2A), disposed in the housing and connected to the movable member (e.g. shown via dotted lines FIG.2D);
a rack structure (e.g. 31 FIG.2A), disposed on the connecting member;
a longitudinal frame (e.g. 32 FIG.1B), disposed in the movable member; and
a gear set (e.g. 411, 413 FIG.2A), connected between the main body and the rack structure (e.g. shown FIG.2A), wherein when the display unit is unfolded relative to the main body, the gear set impels the connecting member, the movable member, and the longitudinal frame in a first direction via the rack structure (e.g. up shown FIG.1A-FIG.1C)
LIANG does not explicitly disclose:
with teeth on one face,
Saito teaches:
with teeth on one face (e.g. 223b FIG.8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Saito as pointed out above, in LIANG, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: allow for greater synchronization of the opening/closing operation (col 15 lines 56-65).
Regarding claim 2 LIANG as modified discloses:
the housing forms a slope surface (e.g. sloping shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C), and when the display unit is unfolded relative to the main body, the longitudinal frame slides out of the movable member along the slope surface (e.g. shown FIG.1A-FIG.2C).
Regarding claim 3 LIANG as modified discloses:
the housing has a protruding portion (e.g. portion of 1 protruding along 3 FIG.1B), and the slope surface is formed on the protruding portion (e.g. shown FIG.1A-FIG.1C).
Regarding claim 4 LIANG as modified discloses:
the front panel forms an opening (e.g. for 3 shown FIG.1A), and the longitudinal frame moves through the opening in a second direction when the display unit is unfolded relative to the main body (e.g. shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C).
Regarding claim 5 LIANG as modified discloses:
the second direction is perpendicular (e.g. lateral toward user FIG.1C) to the first direction.
Regarding claim 6 LIANG as modified discloses:
the rack structure is perpendicular to the longitudinal frame (e.g. shown FIG.2A).
Regarding claim 7 LIANG as modified discloses:
a hinge (e.g. 11 FIG.2B) affixed to the main body (e.g. described paragraph [0036]), wherein the gear set has a gear affixed to the hinge (e.g. shown FIG.2B).
Regarding claim 9 LIANG as modified discloses:
a hinge (e.g. 11 FIG.2B) pivotally connecting the display to the connecting module (e.g. described paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIANG et al. (US 2020/0285273) in view of Saito et al. (US 5731829) in further view of PAI et al. (US 2021/0055762).
Regarding claim 8 LIANG as modified discloses:
The laptop computer as claimed in claim 1
LIANG does not explicitly disclose:
a stylus pen is received in the longitudinal frame , and when the display unit is folded relative to the main body, the longitudinal frame and the stylus pen are hidden inside the movable member
PAI teaches:
wherein a stylus pen (P FIG.7) is received in the frame (e.g. B V FIG.8), and when the display unit (e.g. 21 FIG.14) is folded relative to the main body (e.g. 22 shown FIG.14), the frame and the stylus pen are hidden inside the movable member (e.g. C FIG.7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of PAI as pointed out above, in LIANG, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “intrusion of dust or external objects can be prevented, and the stylus P can also be prevented from being lost and separated from the main body” (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 10 LIANG as modified discloses:
The laptop computer as claimed in claim 1
LIANG does not explicitly disclose:
a resilient member connected between the longitudinal frame and the housing
PAI teaches:
a resilient member (e.g. R2 FIG.5) connected between the frame (e.g. B V FIG.8) and the housing (e.g. H FIG.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of PAI as pointed out above, in LIANG, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “intrusion of dust or external objects can be prevented, and the stylus P can also be prevented from being lost and separated from the main body” (paragraph [0046]).
Claim(s) 11-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIANG et al. (US 2020/0285273) in view of Lin (US 2020/0183451).
Regarding claim 11 LIANG discloses:
A laptop computer, comprising:
a main body (e.g. 1 FIG.1B);
a display unit (e.g. 2 FIG.1B), having a display (e.g. 22 FIG.1B) and a connecting module (e.g. 2, 401 FIG.2A) connected to each other, wherein the connecting module is pivotally connected to the main body (e.g. shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C) and has a housing (e.g. 29 FIG.1B), a front panel (e.g. front face of 2 FIG.1B) connected to the housing, and a movable member (e.g. 401 FIG.2D) movably disposed on the bottom side of the front panel (e.g. shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C);
a connecting member (e.g. 3 FIG.2A), disposed in the housing and connected to the movable member (e.g. shown via dotted lines FIG.2D);
a rack structure (e.g. 31 FIG.2A), disposed on the connecting member;
a longitudinal frame (e.g. 32 FIG.1B), disposed in the movable member; and
a gear set (e.g. 411, 413 FIG.2A), connected between the main body and the rack structure (e.g. shown FIG.2A), wherein when the display unit is unfolded relative to the main body, the gear set impels the connecting member, the movable member, and the longitudinal frame in a first direction via the rack structure (e.g. up shown FIG.1A-FIG.1C);
when the display unit is unfolded relative to the main body, the longitudinal frame slides out of a recess along a slope surface (e.g. shown FIG.1A-FIG.2C)
LIANG does not explicitly disclose:
slides out of a recess formed in the movable member
Lin teaches:
when the display unit (e.g. 1200 FIG.4) is unfolded relative to the main body (e.g. 1100 FIG.4), the longitudinal frame (e.g. 1431 FIG.5) slides out of a recess (e.g. between 1423 and 1424 FIG.5) formed in the movable member (e.g. 1423 and 1424 FIG.5) and along a slope surface (e.g. 1425b FIG.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Lin as pointed out above, in LIANG, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: in order to increase the heat dissipation effect of the lifted device (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 12 LIANG as modified discloses:
the housing forms the slope surface (e.g. sloping shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C).
Regarding claim 13 LIANG as modified discloses:
the housing has a protruding portion (e.g. portion of 1 protruding along 3 FIG.1B), and the slope surface is formed on the protruding portion (e.g. shown FIG.1A-FIG.1C).
Regarding claim 14 LIANG as modified discloses:
the front panel forms an opening (e.g. for 3 shown FIG.1A), and the longitudinal frame moves through the opening in a second direction when the display unit is unfolded relative to the main body (e.g. shown FIG.1B-FIG.1C).
Regarding claim 15 LIANG as modified discloses:
the second direction is perpendicular (e.g. lateral toward user FIG.1C) to the first direction.
Regarding claim 16 LIANG as modified discloses:
the rack structure is perpendicular to the longitudinal frame (e.g. shown FIG.2A).
Regarding claim 17 LIANG as modified discloses:
a hinge (e.g. 11 FIG.2B) affixed to the main body (e.g. described paragraph [0036]), wherein the gear set has a gear affixed to the hinge (e.g. shown FIG.2B).
Regarding claim 19 LIANG as modified discloses:
a hinge (e.g. 11 FIG.2B) pivotally connecting the display to the connecting module (e.g. described paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIANG et al. (US 2020/0285273) in view of Lin (US 2020/0183451) in further view of PAI et al. (US 2021/0055762).
Regarding claim 18 LIANG as modified discloses:
The laptop computer as claimed in claim 11
LIANG does not explicitly disclose:
a stylus pen is received in the longitudinal frame , and when the display unit is folded relative to the main body, the longitudinal frame and the stylus pen are hidden inside the movable member
PAI teaches:
wherein a stylus pen (P FIG.7) is received in the frame (e.g. B V FIG.8), and when the display unit (e.g. 21 FIG.14) is folded relative to the main body (e.g. 22 shown FIG.14), the frame and the stylus pen are hidden inside the movable member (e.g. C FIG.7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of PAI as pointed out above, in LIANG, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “intrusion of dust or external objects can be prevented, and the stylus P can also be prevented from being lost and separated from the main body” (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 20 LIANG as modified discloses:
The laptop computer as claimed in claim 11
LIANG does not explicitly disclose:
a resilient member connected between the longitudinal frame and the housing
PAI teaches:
a resilient member (e.g. R2 FIG.5) connected between the frame (e.g. B V FIG.8) and the housing (e.g. H FIG.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of PAI as pointed out above, in LIANG, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “intrusion of dust or external objects can be prevented, and the stylus P can also be prevented from being lost and separated from the main body” (paragraph [0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) the new and amended claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the PTO-892 disclose/teach similar hinged housings for circuit boards as those disclosed in the present application.
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 THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Limited examiner interviews are available.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights