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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsunami (JP 2009226007 A).
Re claim 1: Matsunami discloses a device comprising:
a display module (digital photo frame 200 in fig 7) including a display (display panel 22 in fig 1) and comprising a first surface (i.e., front surface) on which the display is arranged, a second surface (i.e., rear surface) opposite to the first surface, and slots (25, 27, 28a-28c in fig 7); and
a stand module (stand 60 in figs 8a-8b) including at least one stand configured to (i.e., functional language) support the display module, and comprising a recognition unit, including at least one pin (hook h1 in fig 8), wherein the recognition unit of the stand module correspond to a communication unit, each including at least one pin (switches SW1, SW2, SW3 in fig 7), in the display module and configured to (i.e., functional language) adjust the output of the display (see fig 8b; herein, when the vertical hole 25 or the hanging hook holes 28a and 28b are used for mounting, a vertical display mode is used; and when the horizontal hole 27 or the hanging hook holes 28b, 28c are used for mounting, a horizontal display mode is used).
Matsunami fails to disclose that the stand module including a plurality of recognition units.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stand module with a plurality of recognition units (i.e., hooks) for providing more stable support to the display module on the stand. Also, duplication of parts is considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and has a little patentable significance unless a new and an unexpected result is produced.
Re claim 2: Matsunami discloses the device, wherein the slots in the display module comprise a center slot (25 in fig 7) arranged on the second surface;
a first side slot (27 in fig 7) arranged at (i.e., near) an outer edge of the second surface; and
a second side slot (28a in fig 7) arranged at (i.e., near) an outer edge of the second surface perpendicular to the edge where the first side slot is arranged, and
the stand module comprises a fastening member (hook h1 in figs 8a-8b) comprising a fastener configured to be (i.e., functional language) fastened to the slots.
Re claim 3: Matsunami discloses the device, wherein the communication units (switches SW1, SW2, SW3 in fig 7) are arranged on the slots, and the recognition units are arranged on the fastening member (hook h1 in figs 8a-8b).
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) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunami (JP 2009226007 A) in view of Mensing et al. (US 20130068916 A1).
Re claim 7: Matsunami discloses the device.
Matsunami fails to disclose that the stand module comprises a ground base configured to support the stand module; a first stand unit arranged on the ground base; and a second stand unit arranged on the ground base and in contact with one edge of the first stand unit.
Mensing discloses a stand module (stand 10 in fig 5) comprising a ground base (base 20 in fig 5) configured to support the stand module; a first stand unit (riser 30 in fig 5) arranged on the ground base; and a second stand unit (link 100 in fig 5) arranged on the ground base and in contact with one edge of the first stand unit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stand module with a ground base, a first stand unit and a second stand unit, as shown in the device of Mensing, in order to position the display module on the stand at a wide variety of angles relative to a support surface (Mensing: see paragraph 4).
Re claim 15: Matsunami in view of Mensing discloses the device, wherein the first stand unit (Mensing: 20) and the second stand unit (Mensing: 100) are hinge-coupled (Mensing: i.e., via hinge 140 in fig 5), and a standing angle of the stand module is adjusted by hinge coupling of the first stand unit and the second stand unit (Mensing: see figs 6a-6b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are 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 best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a device including, along with other limitations, the communication units comprise at least one or more communication pins, the recognition units comprise a landscape recognition pin, a portrait recognition pin, and an event recognition pin, and the recognition pins correspond to different communication pins of the communication units as set forth in the claim.
Claims 8-13 are 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 best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a device including, along with other limitations, a first fastening member comprising a fastener coupled to the first stand unit, wherein the first fastening member is configured to be movable up and down on one surface of the first stand unit, and a second fastening member comprising a fastener fixed to a lower end of the second stand unit as set forth in the claim.
Claim 14 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 best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a device including, along with other limitations, a multi-coupling fastening member comprising a fastener, wherein the first stand unit comprises a first fastening groove, and the second stand unit comprises a second fastening groove, and the multi-coupling fastening member is fastened to one of the first fastening groove or the second fastening groove as set forth in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nidhi Thaker whose telephone number is (571)270-3408. The examiner can normally be reached M, TH, F 10am-6pm.
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, Imani 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.
/NIDHI THAKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841