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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 07/02/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1-3 and 5-20 have been amended; Claim 4 has been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “In response to what is present within the Office Action, the pivot mechanism is an element of the upper portion of the device stand in the same manner as the second hinge. Both elements are s coupled to the upper portion of the arm of the device stand. Thus, Applicant submits that the pivot mechanism is defined within the specification, and the claim set, as a standalone element that influences a range of motion of an attachment plate of a device stand” – As stated previously, Claim 1 initially states “the upper portion of the arm comprises a second hinge and a pivot mechanism” (emphasis added), which clearly defines the pivot mechanism is the upper portion of the arm but later states that it is a separate element which is indefinite. The provided excerpt from the specification indicates that the pivot mechanism is separate from the upper portion of the arm, but as the claims initially state the opposite, the rejection stands. Additionally, no arguments have been made in regards to the 112(a) rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 nor the antecedent basis rejection of claim 20, as such these rejections stand.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “Kim fails to teach, and/or suggest, "wherein the arm comprises a first hinge and wherein the base is configured to move about a first pivot point of the arm via the first hinge in a parallel rotation direction with respect to the lower portion of the arm."… Kim at col. 3, lines 55 - 64 (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that the utilization of tightening and/or releasing knobs in Kim results in an "opposite resilient force" that promotes a compression, and/or accordion-like, motion, and does not comprise a "parallel rotation direction," Claim 1 (as previously presented), as disclosed throughout the current application. Applicant reminds the Office that the interpretation of the system and method is done so with respect to the description present within the specification, as filed, and therefore, the "parallel rotation direction," Claim 1 (as previously presented), requires consistent directional movement when adjusting a device stand.” – The presence of a knob in Kim does not affect the fact that it discloses a parallel rotation direction. The specification of the instant application defines a parallel rotation direction as “[0031]…the arm 302 can pivot with respect to the base 301 so that the upper portion of the arm moves forwards and backwards around the base 302, thereby allowing a user to adjust the height, with respect to the base, of the upper portion of the arm 302 and the attachment mechanism 303.” The upper poriton of the arm in Kim can move forward and backwards around its base. Therefore it reads on the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that: "Applicant submits that Truong discloses the use of an additional component, and/or a locking mechanism, to ensure that a device does not move from a desired position. “Thus, springs that induce a bias small enough to overcome by the weight of the display device itself when rotated may be used, and thus the spring bias may be overcome to hold the display device coupled to the plate 1006 in place upon rotation to a particular user-defined angle." Truong at col. 9, lines 23 - 28 (emphasis added). The use of a spring to maintain a position of a device is seen as a component that assists with maintaining a position of a device, and therefore, should not be interpreted as "strong hinge," as disclosed within the specification of the current application.” – As shown in the excerpt provided by applicant, the hinge of Truong includes a bias that can be overcome when the display is rotated but then hold the display at an angle when not being rotated. The fact that the bias can be overcome to move the display means that the hinge is not locked in position, therfore the spring bias is not a locking mechanism and applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 each recite “a strong hinge that maintains an angle between the arm and the base” and applicant has argued in their remarks filed 03/17/2026 that a “strong hinge” is “"[t]he first hinge 304 may be a strong hinge that does not require a locking mechanism for maintaining an angle for the adjustable stand." Specification at [0032]” (Remarks; Pg. 13), which indicates that the recitation of a “strong hinge” is intended to be read as a hinge that maintains an angle without having to be locked by a mechanism. Looking to the specification, various locking mechanisms are mentioned in [0032] but nowhere in the specification nor drawings is there any detail as to the elements of the recited “strong hinge” that make it capable of maintaining an angle. As such, this subject matter was not described in the specification to reasonably convey that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-3 and 5-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claims 1, 13, and 20.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the upper portion of the arm comprises a second hinge and a pivot mechanism” but then later recites “the pivot mechanism is present between the attachment plate and the upper portion of the arm” (emphasis added). – It is unclear how the pivot mechanism can be an element of the upper portion of the arm yet also be positioned between the upper portion and the attachment plate.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first hinge" in line(s) 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5-12 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 1.
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, 5-7, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 4,989,813) in view of Truong et al. (US 9,371,956).
In regards to Claim 1, Kim discloses a device, comprising: a base (Kim: Fig. 1; 1); an arm (Kim: Fig. 1; 3, 13) pivotally coupled to the base at a lower portion of the arm, wherein the arm comprises a first hinge (Kim: Fig. 1; N1) and wherein the base is configured to move about a first pivot point of the arm via the first hinge in a parallel rotation direction with respect to the lower portion of the arm; and an attachment plate (Kim: Fig. 1; 14; see note) coupled directly to an upper portion of the arm, wherein the upper portion of the arm comprises a second hinge (Kim: Fig. 1; N2) and a pivot mechanism (Kim: Fig. 1; 13, 18), wherein the attachment plate is configured to move about a second pivot point of the arm via the second hinge in a parallel rotation direction with respect to the upper portion of the arm, wherein the pivot mechanism is present between the attachment plate and the upper portion of the arm and wherein the attachment plate is configured to move about the pivot mechanism in a perpendicular rotation direction with respect to the upper portion of the arm, wherein the attachment plate coupled directly to the upper portion of the arm comprises a removable attachment mechanism and wherein the removeable attachment mechanism is one of: clips and receivers, at least one screw (Kim: Fig. 1; 16), and a ball and socket.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose a strong hinge of a first hinge that maintain an angle between the arm and the base; and a second hinge that is a strong hinge; and wherein each do not require use of a locking mechanism; wherein the strong hinge of the first hinge and the strong hinge of the second hinge maintain an orientation of the device stand when supporting an information handling device coupled to a face of the attachment plate. However, Truong teaches a strong hinge (Truong: Fig. 11; 1012); wherein the strong hinge maintains an orientation of a device stand when supporting an information handling device (Truong: Col. 9, Ln. 19-28).
Kim and Truong are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable device supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinges in Kim with the torsional strength from Truong, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide hinges with a bias calibrated to allow rotation of a device but also to hold the device in a particular user-defined angle once it has been adjusted, thereby making adjustment of the device easier and more stable (Truong: Col. 9, Ln. 19-28; Kim: Col. 3, Ln. 58-60). [Note: Kim refers to element 13 as a plate and as such element 14 is also a plate.]
In regards to Claim 5, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, wherein the pivot mechanism (Kim: Fig. 1; 13, 18) allows full rotation about the pivot mechanism.
In regards to Claim 6, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, wherein the lower portion (Kim: Fig. 1; N1) of the arm and the upper portion (Kim: Fig. 1; N2, 13) of the arm are parallel to each other and connected together via a middle portion (Kim: Annotated Fig. 1; M) of the arm.
In regards to Claim 7, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, wherein the lower portion (Kim: Fig. 1; N1) of the arm is coupled to the base (Kim: Fig. 1; 1) at a rear surface of the base.
In regards to Claim 11, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, wherein the first hinge (Kim: Fig. 1; N1) comprises a locking mechanism (Kim: Fig. 1; 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a) that holds the first hinge in a set position.
In regards to Claim 12, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, wherein the second hinge (Kim: Fig. 1; N2) comprises a locking mechanism (Kim: Fig. 1; 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b, 10b) that holds the second hinge in a set position.
In regards to Claim 20, Kim discloses a system, comprising: a base (Kim: Fig. 1; 1); an arm (Kim: Fig. 1; 3, 13) pivotally coupled to the base at a lower portion of the arm, wherein the base is configured to move about a pivot point of the arm in a parallel rotation direction with respect to the lower portion of the arm, and a first hinge (Kim: Fig. 1; N1); an attachment plate (Kim: Fig. 1; 14) coupled directly to an upper portion of the arm, wherein the attachment plate is configured to move about a second pivot point of the arm in a parallel rotation direction with respect to the upper portion of the arm, wherein the upper portion of the arm comprises a pivot mechanism (Kim: Fig. 1; 13, 18) at the second pivot point further permitting movement about the pivot mechanism in a perpendicular rotation direction with respect to the upper portion of the arm, wherein the attachment plate coupled directly to the upper portion of the arm comprises a removable attachment mechanism and wherein the removeable attachment mechanism is one of: clips and receivers, at least one screw (Kim: Fig. 1; 16), and a ball and socket; and an information handling device (Kim: Fig. 2; M) coupled to a face of the attachment plate.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose a strong hinge of a first hinge that maintain an angle between the arm and the base; and a second hinge that is a strong hinge; and wherein each do not require use of a locking mechanism; wherein the strong hinge of the first hinge and the strong hinge of the second hinge maintain an orientation of the device stand when supporting an information handling device coupled to a face of the attachment plate. However, Truong teaches a strong hinge (Truong: Fig. 11; 1012); wherein the strong hinge maintains an orientation of a device stand when supporting an information handling device (Truong: Col. 9, Ln. 19-28).[Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 4,989,813) in view of Truong et al. (US 9,371,956) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emami (US 2014/0226281).
In regards to Claim 2, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the base comprises a weighted base. However, Emami teaches a base that comprises a weighted base (Emami: Fig. 1-5; 3).
Kim and Emami are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable device supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base in Kim to be weighted, as taught by Emami, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a base having a weight that ensures the support is secure when being adjusted and even when extended to a maximum position (Emami: [0010]).
In regards to Claim 10, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, wherein the arm comprises a middle portion (Kim: Annotated Fig. 1; M).
Kim fails to disclose a middle portion comprises a telescoping device allowing for a change in length of the middle portion. However, Emami teaches an arm (Emami: Fig. 1-5; 5) comprising a middle portion, wherein the middle portion comprises a telescoping device allowing for a change in length of the middle portion (Emami: Fig. 1-4; shows length change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm in Kim to be telescopic, as taught by Emami, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an arm that can be adjusted to and secured in a variable length (Emami: [0037]), thereby further increasing the adjustability of the support.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 4,989,813) in view of Truong et al. (US 9,371,956) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP 3242611).
In regards to Claim 3, Kim, as modified, teaches the device stand of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the base comprises at least one holding mechanism to attach the base to a surface.
However, Hayashi teaches a base that comprises at least one holding mechanism (Hayashi: Fig. 3; 2012) to attach the base to a surface.
Kim and Hayashi are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable device supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base in Kim with the holding mechanism from Hayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means to prevent the base from slipping on a surface, thereby increasing the stability of the support (Hayashi: [0091]).
Claims 8-9, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 4,989,813) in view of Truong et al. (US 9,371,956) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Westbrook (US 4,516,751).
In regards to Claim 8, Kim, as modified, teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the attachment plate comprises at least one attachment mechanism for coupling to an information handling device.
However, teaches an attachment plate comprises at least one attachment mechanism (Westbrook: Fig. 3, 5-6; 64, 72, 76) for coupling to an information handling device.
Kim and Westbrook are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable device supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment plate in Kim with the attachment mechanism from Westbrook, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an attachment means on the plate that can be received by an element mounted to the device and secured, enabling the support to be quickly attached and detached from the device and making use of the device quicker and more convenient (Westbrook: Col. 2, Ln. 21-28; Col. 3, Ln. 51-65).
In regards to Claim 9, Kim, as modified, teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the at least one attachment mechanism (Westbrook: Fig. 3, 5-6; 64, 72, 76) comprises at least one attachment mechanism selected from the group consisting of: a magnet, a suction device, a fastener, and an adhesive.
In regards to Claim 13, Kim discloses an information handling device stand, comprising: a base (Kim: Fig. 1; 1); an arm (Kim: Fig. 1; 3, 13) pivotally coupled to a back surface of the base at lower portion of the arm, wherein the arm comprises a first hinge (Kim: Fig. 1; N1) and wherein the base is configured to move about a first pivot point of the arm via the first hinge in a parallel rotation direction with respect to the lower portion of the arm; and an attachment plate (Kim: Fig. 1; 14) coupled directly to an upper portion of the arm via a pivot mechanism (Kim: Fig. 1; 13, 18), wherein the pivot mechanism is present between the attachment plate and the upper portion of the arm, wherein the attachment plate is configured to move about the pivot mechanism in a perpendicular rotation direction with respect to the upper portion of the arm, wherein the upper portion of the arm comprises a second hinge, wherein the attachment plate is configured to move about a second pivot point of the arm via the second hinge in a parallel rotation direction with respect to the upper portion of the arm, wherein the attachment plate coupled directly to the upper portion of the arm comprises a removable attachment mechanism and wherein the removeable attachment mechanism is one of: clips and receivers, at least one screw (Kim: Fig. 1; 16), and a ball and socket.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose a strong hinge of a first hinge that maintain an angle between the arm and the base; and a second hinge that is a strong hinge; and wherein each do not require use of a locking mechanism; wherein the strong hinge of the first hinge and the strong hinge of the second hinge maintain an orientation of the device stand when supporting an information handling device coupled to a face of the attachment plate. However, Truong teaches a strong hinge (Truong: Fig. 11; 1012); wherein the strong hinge maintains an orientation of a device stand when supporting an information handling device (Truong: Col. 9, Ln. 19-28). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Additionally, Kim fails to disclose wherein the attachment plate comprises at least one attachment mechanism for coupling an information handling device to a face of the attachment plate of the information handling device stand. However, Westbrook teaches an attachment plate that comprises at least one attachment mechanism (Westbrook: Fig. 3, 5-6; 64, 72, 76) for coupling an information handling device to a face of an attachment plate. [Note: See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Claim 16 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
In regards to Claim 18, Kim, as modified, teaches the information handling device stand of claim 13, wherein at least one of the first hinge and the second hinge comprises a locking mechanism (Kim: Fig. 1; 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a) that holds the at least one of the first hinge and the second hinge in a set position.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 4,989,813) in view of Truong et al. (US 9,371,956) and Westbrook (US 4,516,751) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Emami (US 2014/0226281).
Claim 14 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 4,989,813) in view of Truong et al. (US 9,371,956) and Westbrook (US 4,516,751) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP 3242611).
Claim 15 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
706
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Kim; Fig. 1
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights