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.
Claims 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), and further in view of Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mercier discloses: a case comprising:
an upper case (22, fig. 1);
a lower case (20, fig. 1);
a hinge (24, fig. 2);
an AC connector (68, fig. fig. 1);
a plurality of console wires (86, fig. 1);
a handle (88, fig. 1);
a blister (46, fig. 2, ¶[0035]);
a trolley handle (90, fig. 4-5); and
a plurality of wheels (92, fig. 1).
Mercier does not explicitly disclose:
a left support hinge;
a right support hinge;
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly;
a trolley strap;
However, Reichert discloses:
a case comprising an upper case (2, fig. 1), a lower case (fig. 1), a left support hinge (see annotated fig. 1 below), and a right support hinge (see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
401
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Mercier’s hinge with Reichert’s left and right support hinge, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (case hinges) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Reichert, and a hinge model of a plurality of models used in the art for rotatably connecting case portions. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Mercier in view of Reichert does not explicitly disclose:
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly;
a trolley strap;
However, Kawamura teaches:
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly (2, 4, 8 and 9, fig. 4);
a trolley strap (1, 3, fig. 4);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Mercier’s wheels and trolley handle for Kawamura’s trolley assembly, handle and strap, in order to provide a detachable load carrying / transporting platform when moving the case over long distances, and prevents the case from being affected by shock during said transportation (¶[0004]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 4, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Mercier further teaches:
further comprising:
a plurality of console straps (64, fig. 2);
a console (12, fig. 2); and
at least one controller (78, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Mercier further teaches:
further comprising:
at least one speaker for audio (18, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Mercier further teaches:
further comprising:
a monitor (16, fig. 2); and
a monitor mount (106, fig. 8).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lapoint (US 20160355299; “Lapoint” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
a detachable stability enhancement stand.
However, Lapoint discloses:
a case (10, fig. 10) with a stability enhancement stand (22, fig. 3),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Lapoint’s stability enhancement stand into Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura, in order add greater stability when the case is both open and closed (¶[0019]).
Lapoint is silent with regard to the detachability of the stability enhancement stand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make Lapoint’s stability enhancement stand a detachable member, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969). The modification would allow to strore the stability enhancement stand when greater stability is not required, and to replace said stability enhancement stand when damaged or worn out.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter) and Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a plurality of securing bands.
However, Bailey teaches:
a plurality of securing bands (606, fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Bailey’s securing band into Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura, in order to provide a means for cable management (¶[0056]-[0057]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), and Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Leitao (US 20040066613; “Leitao” hereinafter) and Guo (US 20200050822; “Guo” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a foam screen protector.
However, Leitao teaches:
a screen (3, fig. 3) protector: (10, fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Leitao’s screen protector into Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura, in order to provide a protection to the screen monitor from contact with body oils or grease during handling of the case (¶[0048]).
Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Leitao, does not explicitly teach:
the screen protector being foam
However, Guo teaches,
a foam screen protector (340, fig. 11, ¶[0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Guo’s teaching into Leitao’s screen protector into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, and Leitao, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter) and Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Chen (US 20160091135; “Chen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a detachable monitor stand (100, fig. 1).
However, Chen teaches:
a detachable monitor stand (100, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Chen’s stand into Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura, for the advantage of placing the monitor in a convenient support surface that is not suitable for the case, and thus enhancing the portable gaming console user experience. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (monitor stand) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Chen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter) and Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cheng et al (TWI 1569132; “Cheng” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
customized lighting.
However, Cheng teaches:
a computer case (C2, fig. 3), further comprising customized lighting (5, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Cheng’s light-emitting module into Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura, in order to provide illumination to the case environment in a dim environment, avoid tripping to an object (such as a cable lines), and the user can also observe the blinking of the light beam by visual means. The frequency can quickly determine the degree of output power, which is very simple and easy to understand. In addition, the light-emitting module has a variety of protection measures to prevent collisions, accidental touches and other safety structures such as electric shock (see page 7, lines 12-18).
Claims 10, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), and further in view of Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter) and Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Mercier discloses: a case comprising:
an upper case (22, fig. 1);
a lower case (20, fig. 1);
a hinge (24, fig. 2);
an AC connector (68, fig. fig. 1);
a plurality of console wires (86, fig. 1);
a handle (88, fig. 1);
a blister (46, fig. 2, ¶[0035]);
a trolley handle (90, fig. 4-5); and
a plurality of wheels (92, fig. 1).
a console (12, fig. 2);
at least one controller (78, fig. 3).
a plurality of console straps (64, fig. 2);
Mercier does not explicitly disclose:
a left support hinge;
a right support hinge;
a plurality of securing bands;
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly;
a trolley strap;
However, Reichert discloses:
a case comprising an upper case (2, fig. 1), a lower case (fig. 1), a left support hinge (see annotated fig. 1 below), and a right support hinge (see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
401
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Mercier’s hinge with Reichert’s left and right support hinge, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (case hinges) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Reichert, and a hinge model of a plurality of models used in the art for rotatably connecting case portions. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Mercier in view of Reichert does not explicitly disclose:
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly;
a trolley strap;
a plurality of securing bands.
However, Kawamura teaches:
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly (2, 4, 8 and 9, fig. 4);
a trolley strap (1, 3, fig. 4);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Mercier’s wheels and trolley handle for Kawamura’s trolley assembly, handle and strap, in order to provide a detachable load carrying / transporting platform when moving the case over long distances, and prevents the case from being affected by shock during said transportation (¶[0004]-[0006]).
Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of securing bands.
However, Bailey teaches:
a plurality of securing bands (606, fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Bailey’s securing band into Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura, in order to provide a means for cable management (¶[0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and bailey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Mercier further teaches:
further comprising:
a monitor (16, fig. 2); and
a monitor mount (106, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and bailey teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Mercier further teaches:
further comprising:
at least one speaker for audio (18, fig. 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Lapoint (US 20160355299; “Lapoint” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey teaches the limitations of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
a detachable stability enhancement stand.
However, Lapoint discloses:
a case (10, fig. 10) with a stability enhancement stand (22, fig. 3),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Lapoint’s stability enhancement stand into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, and Bailey in order add greater stability when the case is both open and closed (¶[0019]).
Lapoint is silent with regard to the detachability of the stability enhancement stand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make Lapoint’s stability enhancement stand a detachable member, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969). The modification would allow to strore the stability enhancement stand when greater stability is not required, and to replace said stability enhancement stand when damaged or worn out.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter) Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Leitao (US 20040066613; “Leitao” hereinafter) and Guo (US 20200050822; “Guo” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey teaches the limitations of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
a foam screen protector.
However, Leitao teaches:
a screen (3, fig. 3) protector: (10, fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Leitao’s screen protector into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey, in order to provide a protection to the screen monitor from contact with body oils or grease during handling of the case (¶[0048]).
Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Leitao, does not explicitly teach:
the screen protector being foam
However, Guo teaches,
a foam screen protector (340, fig. 11, ¶[0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Guo’s teaching into Leitao’s screen protector as modified by Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, Bailey and Leitao, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter), as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Chen (US 20160091135; “Chen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey teaches the limitations of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a detachable monitor stand.
However, Chen teaches:
a detachable monitor stand (100, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Chen’s stand into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey, for the advantage of placing the monitor in a convenient support surface that is not suitable for the case, and thus enhancing the portable gaming console user experience. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (monitor stand) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Chen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Cheng et al (TWI 1569132; “Cheng” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, Bailey teaches the limitations of claim 10, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
customized lighting.
However, Cheng teaches:
a computer case (C2, fig. 3), further comprising customized lighting (5, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Cheng’s light-emitting module into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey, in order to provide illumination to the case environment in a dim environment, avoid tripping to an object (such as a cable lines), and the user can also observe the blinking of the light beam by visual means. The frequency can quickly determine the degree of output power, which is very simple and easy to understand. In addition, the light-emitting module has a variety of protection measures to prevent collisions, accidental touches and other safety structures such as electric shock (see page 7, lines 12-18).
Claims 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), and further in view of Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter), Leitao (US 20040066613; “Leitao” hereinafter) and Guo (US 20200050822; “Guo” hereinafter), and further in view of Lapoint (US 20160355299; “Lapoint” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Mercier discloses: a case comprising:
an upper case (22, fig. 1);
a lower case (20, fig. 1);
a hinge (24, fig. 2);
an AC connector (68, fig. fig. 1);
a plurality of console wires (86, fig. 1);
a handle (88, fig. 1);
a blister (46, fig. 2, ¶[0035]);
a trolley handle (90, fig. 4-5); and
a plurality of wheels (92, fig. 1).
a console (12, fig. 2);
at least one controller (78, fig. 3).
a plurality of console straps (64, fig. 2);
a monitor (16, fig. 2); and
a monitor mount (106, fig. 8).
Mercier does not explicitly disclose:
a left support hinge
a right support hinge
a detachable stability enhancement stand;
a plurality of securing bands;
a foam screen protector;
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly;
a trolley strap;
However, Reichert discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
401
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a case comprising an upper case (2, fig. 1), a lower case (fig. 1), a left support hinge (see annotated fig. 1 below), and a right support hinge (see annotated fig. 1 below);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Mercier’s hinge with Reichert’s left and right support hinge, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (case hinges) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Reichert, and a hinge model of a plurality of models used in the art for rotatably connecting case portions. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Mercier in view of Reichert does not explicitly disclose:
a detachable stability enhancement stand;
a plurality of securing bands;
a foam screen protector;
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly;
a trolley strap;
However, Kawamura teaches:
a shock-absorbing trolley assembly (2, 4, 8 and 9, fig. 4);
a trolley strap (1, 3, fig. 4);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Mercier’s wheels and trolley handle for Kawamura’s trolley assembly, handle and strap, in order to provide a detachable load carrying / transporting platform when moving the case over long distances, and prevents the case from being affected by shock during said transportation (¶[0004]-[0006]).
Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura does not explicitly disclose:
a detachable stability enhancement stand;
a plurality of securing bands;
a foam screen protector;
However, Bailey teaches:
a plurality of securing bands (606, fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Bailey’s securing band into Mercier in view of Reichert and Kawamura, in order to provide a means for cable management (¶[0056]-[0057]).
Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey does not explicitly disclose:
a foam screen protector;
a detachable stability enhancement stand.
However, Leitao teaches:
a screen (3, fig. 3) protector: (10, fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Leitao’s screen protector into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey, in order to provide a protection to the screen monitor from contact with body oils or grease during handling of the case (¶[0048]).
Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Leitao, does not explicitly teach:
the screen protector being foam
However, Guo teaches,
a foam screen protector (340, fig. 11, ¶[0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Guo’s teaching into Leitao’s screen protector as modified by Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, Bailey and Leitao, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, Bailey, Leitao, and Guo does not explicitly disclose:
a detachable stability enhancement stand;
However, Lapoint discloses:
a case (10, fig. 10) with a stability enhancement stand (22, fig. 3),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Lapoint’s stability enhancement stand into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, and Bailey in order add greater stability when the case is both open and closed (¶[0019]).
Lapoint is silent with regard to the detachability of the stability enhancement stand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make Lapoint’s stability enhancement stand a detachable member, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969). The modification would allow to strore the stability enhancement stand when greater stability is not required, and to replace said stability enhancement stand when damaged or worn out.
Regarding claim 20, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, Bailey, Leitao, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 17, and Mercier further teaches:
further comprising:
at least one speaker for audio (18, fig. 2).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), and further in view of Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter), Leitao (US 20040066613; “Leitao” hereinafter) and Guo (US 20200050822; “Guo” hereinafter), Lapoint (US 20160355299; “Lapoint” hereinafter) as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Chen (US 20160091135; “Chen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey teaches the limitations of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a detachable monitor stand.
However, Chen teaches:
a detachable monitor stand (100, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Chen’s stand into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey, for the advantage of placing the monitor in a convenient support surface that is not suitable for the case, and thus enhancing the portable gaming console user experience. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (monitor stand) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Chen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercier (US 20110092294; “Mercier” hereinafter), in view of Reichert et al (US 20210245065; “Reichert” hereinafter), and further in view of Kawamura (JP 2000318618A; “Kawamura” hereinafter), Bailey (US 20150181747; “Bailey” hereinafter), Leitao (US 20040066613; “Leitao” hereinafter) and Guo (US 20200050822; “Guo” hereinafter), Lapoint (US 20160355299; “Lapoint” hereinafter) as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Cheng et al (TWI 1569132B; “Cheng” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura, Bailey, Leitao, and Guo teaches the limitations of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
customized lighting.
However, Cheng teaches:
a computer case (C2, fig. 3), further comprising customized lighting (5, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Cheng’s light-emitting module into Mercier in view of Reichert, Kawamura and Bailey, in order to provide illumination to the case environment in a dim environment, avoid tripping to an object (such as a cable lines), and the user can also observe the blinking of the light beam by visual means. The frequency can quickly determine the degree of output power, which is very simple and easy to understand. In addition, the light-emitting module has a variety of protection measures to prevent collisions, accidental touches and other safety structures such as electric shock (see page 7, lines 12-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is:
US 20030217940 A1 Armored Peripheral Case. This invention relates generally to a protective carrying case for a computer includes a top portion and a bottom portion for supporting the computer. The top portion is configured to close over the computer and mate with the bottom portion to form a complete enclosure around the computer, with padding to protect the computer.
US 5485922 Portable Computer Carry Case Assembly. This invention generally relates to a portable computer carry case assembly, to be used to safely and securely contain and transport a portable computer and various accessories therefor, the assembly having a main housing which is divided into a top compartment and a bottom compartment by a divider panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841