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 § 112
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 1-20 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 limitation "a laptop" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a laptop" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites that “… wherein the body component is manufactured of a lightweight foam … wherein the body component is a telescoping construction that can be extended and retracted.” However, there is no support in applicant’s specification that the foam construction also applies to the telescoping feature disclosed in para 0047 of applicant’s specification. The telescoping feature appears to be another embodiment, separate from the foam construction embodiment. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. It is questionable that the “lightweight foam” as presented and disclosed supports a telescoping construction that is extendable and retractable, as disclosed. Again, the scope of the claim is unclear and will be rejected as best understood.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the charge ports" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the ends" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a laptop" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the arms" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites, “…sliding out the arms to hold a smart device” – noting that “out” is a relative term. The scope of the claim is unclear. Sliding out relative to what?
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0325818 to Mayfield.
Regarding claim 1, Mayfield ‘818 discloses a laptop raiser device that elevates a laptop, the laptop raiser device comprising: a body component 200; wherein the body component is positioned to rest on its side on a surface (figs 2); wherein a laptop 210 is positioned on the body component 200 and is angularly supported by the body component (para 0037 – fig. 2abc, for example); and further wherein a bottom of the laptop 210 is placed to rest on the side of the body component 200, with a bottom edge of the laptop 210 resting on the surface.
Regarding claim 2, Mayfield ‘818 discloses, wherein the body component 200 is configured in a cylindrical shape with a flattened horizontal side (body 200 flattens against surface and includes flattened ends 214/215/216 - (para 0055-0057).
Regarding claim 3, Mayfield ‘818 discloses, wherein the body component 200 comprises at least one sliding arm 405 to hold-up and display a smartphone or small tablet in an upright manner (para 0061 – “… another non-restrictive version of the amorphous bag apparatus 400 having a cylindrical shape.”)
Regarding claim 4, Mayfield ‘818 discloses further comprising a storage pouch 201 for easy transport of the laptop raiser device (fig. 2A).
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) 5-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325818 to Mayfield in view of US 8,777,174 to Hynell.
Regarding claim 5, Mayfield ‘818 discloses a support for a laptop.
Hynell ‘174 teaches at least one small, non-slip pad secured to laptop in order to enhance portability and mobility (col. 4, lines 3-6 – “… it is possible to integrate the non slip risers onto a non rigid material which can include a storage case for the lap top computer or other travel compartments.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify any portion of the laptop shown in Mayfield ‘818 with the non-slip pads taught in Hynell ‘174 in order to prevent the laptop from slipping when the laptop is positioned on the body component – thus enhancing portability and mobility of the laptop.
Regarding claim 6, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the laptop raiser device is manufactured from a material that is water resistant or waterproof (para 0052 – “… bags of other embodiments discussed elsewhere herein may also be made water impervious”).
Regarding claim 7, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses a support device 205 that could be manufactured from a variety of materials (para 0041). Noting that It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an antibacterial or antimicrobial material for the device in order to enhance the safety of the frequently handled device, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Mayfield ‘818,as modified, discloses the body component 205. Hynell ‘174 teaches a body component 2 comprises a non-slip surface 1 (fig. 3 – col. 5, lines 32-35). 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 body component of Mayfield ‘818 with the non-slip surface as taught in Hynell ‘174 in order to enhance supporting the device relative to the support body.
Regarding claim 9, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses further comprising a plurality of indicia (para 0078 – “logo”).
Regarding claim 10, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the body component is a solid, one-piece construction (para 0066 – … in another embodiment - bag 501 may be removable from the malleable filling (which may be of any type, but in one convenient form may be one-piece, such as putty or gel)”). Noting that Mayfield ‘818 teaches that FIG. 5 is “another, alternate amorphous bag apparatus 500 having at least one amorphous bag 501 containing a malleable filling (not shown), which apparatus 500 is also of a cylindrical shape …”.
Regarding claim 12, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the body component 205 comprises an internal storage cavity 409 with a lid 410. Noting that Mayfield ‘818 teaches that “FIG. 4 is a three-quarters perspective view of another non-restrictive version of the amorphous bag apparatus 400 having a cylindrical shape” para 0061. Mayfield 818 also teaches that “FIG. 4 is an optional receptacle 409 on amorphous bag 401, which in one non-limiting embodiment is a pocket having a flap 410, which may be optionally fastenable or closable, using any of a variety of closure mechanisms…” para 0065. Mayfield further teaches that “…receptacle 409 may be of any shape or design or size or position and is not necessarily limited to the shape, position or relative size shown.” Para 0065.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325818 to Mayfield in view of US 8,777,174 to Hynell as applied to claims 5-10 and 12 above, and further in view of US 1,859,646 to Afpelbaum.
Regarding claim 11, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses a cylindrical body component, that is disclosed as being a possible one-piece construction with the cover as optional. Noting that Mayfield ‘818 teaches a variety of materials, configurations, and options for the body component. (para 0066 and 0078).
Apfelbaum ‘646 teaches a cylindrical body component that is a telescoping construction that can be extended and retracted in order to support devices or objects of a certain size and/or shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the body component taught in Mayfield ‘818 with a telescoping construction as taught in Apfelbaum ‘646 in order to support devices or objects of a certain size and/or shape.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325818 to Mayfield in view of US 8,777,174 to Hynell as applied to claims 5-10 and 12 above, and further in view of US 11,907,014 to Grant.
Regarding claim 13, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the body component 200 comprises opposing ends. Mayfield ‘818 teaches that the body components may be configured to “electrically connect a mobile device … to enhance the antenna of the mobile device for better Wi-Fi, cellular phone signal or other signal reception” para 0051. So to include a port or other electrical components would be an obvious and expected modification.
For example, Grant ‘014 teaches a device holding assembly including integrated features such as a port 64 (fig. 1) or a speaker 48.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to modify any surface of the body component of Mayfield ‘818 with the port or speakers as taught in Grant ‘014 so that a user may charge their device and listen to music or videos while supporting the device relative to the support assembly.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325818 to Mayfield in view of US 11,907,014 to Grant and US 1,859,646 to Apfelbaum.
Regarding claim 14, Mayfield ‘818 discloses laptop raiser device that elevates a laptop, the laptop raiser device comprising: a body component 200 configured in a cylindrical shape with a flattened horizontal side 214/215/216 (note the side is flattened when placed on a surface and note the flattened stabilizers 214/215/216 which are part of the horizontal side of the support 200 which are also flattened); and at least one sliding arm 405 to hold-up and display a smartphone or small tablet in an upright manner (sliding arm 405 is part of “another non-restrictive version of the amorphous bag apparatus 400 having a cylindrical shape” para 0061); wherein the body component 200 is positioned to rest on the flattened horizontal side 214/215/216 (parts of the side of the body that is flattened) on a surface; wherein a laptop is positioned on the body component 200 and is angularly supported by the body component; wherein a bottom of the laptop is placed to rest on the side of the body component 200, with a bottom edge of the laptop resting on the surface; wherein the body component 200 comprises an internal storage cavity 409 with a lid 410 (as part of “another non-restrictive version of the amorphous bag apparatus 400 having a cylindrical shape” para 0061);
Mayfield ‘818 teaches that the body components may be configured to “electrically connect a mobile device … to enhance the antenna of the mobile device for better Wi-Fi, cellular phone signal or other signal reception” para 0051. So to include a port or other electrical components would be an obvious modification.
For example, Grant ‘014 teaches a device holding assembly including integrated features such as a port 64 (fig. 1) or a speaker 48.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to modify any surface of the body component of Mayfield ‘818 with the port or speakers as taught in Grant ‘014 so that a user may charge their device and listen to music or videos while supporting the device relative to the support assembly.
Further, Mayfield ‘818 teaches an embodiment where the bag may be removable from the malleable filling which may be of any type, but in one convenient form may be one-piece, such as putty or gel (para 0061). Noting that Mayfield teaches using various materials as well as a simpler configuration.
Grant ‘014 also teaches a body component 38 is manufactured of a lightweight foam (“… sphere 38 may be comprised of a resilient material which has friction reducing properties…” - col. 3, lines 16-18 ~ which is akin to lightweight foam). Noting that Mayfield ‘818 does teach an embodiment where the bag may be removable from the malleable filling which may be of any type, but in one convenient form may be one-piece (para 0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to modify the material of body component of Mayfield ‘818 with the material as taught in Grant ‘014 in order to enhance the device to be easy to handle, inexpensive to ship, and cheaper to manufacture.
Also noting that 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, 125 USPQ 416. So to include a non-slip surface material would also be an obvious modification.
Mayfield ‘818 as modified by Grant ‘014 now includes a one-piece body component made of a lightweight foam type construction.
Apfelbaum ‘646 teaches a cylindrical body component that is a telescoping construction that can be extended and retracted in order to support devices or objects of a certain size and/or shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the body component taught in Mayfield ‘818 that is now modified with a lightweight foam construction like Grant ‘0014, further with a telescoping construction as taught in Apfelbaum ‘646 in order to support devices or objects of a certain size and/or shape.
Regarding claim 15, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the body component 20 is available in different shapes, colors, designs, and patterns (para 0078).
Regarding claim 16, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the body component comprises an internal battery (as modified by Grant ‘014 – col. 4, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 17, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the body component comprises a USB port for charging the laptop raiser device (as modified by Grant ‘014 – fig. 1, col. 4, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 18, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses, wherein the body component comprises at least one telescoping segment with a slip lock 2 which allows a total length of the body component to be extended or retracted (as modified by Apfelbaum ‘646 – pg. 1, line 60).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325818 to Mayfield in view of US 11,907,014 to Grant and US 1,859,646 to Apfelbaum as applied to claims 14-18 above, and further in view of US 8,777,174 to Hynell.
Regarding claim 19, Mayfield ‘818, as modified, discloses a laptop that is positioned on the body component 200.
Hynell ‘174 teaches at least one small, non-slip pad secured to a laptop in order to enhance portability and mobility (col. 4, lines 3-6 – “… it is possible to integrate the non slip risers onto a non rigid material which can include a storage case for the lap top computer or other travel compartments.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify any portion of the laptop shown in Mayfield ‘818 with a non-slip pad as taught in Hynell ‘174 in order to prevent the laptop from slipping when the laptop is positioned on the body component – thus enhancing portability and mobility of the laptop and the supporting component body.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325818 to Mayfield in view of US 11,907,014 to Grant.
Concerning method claim 20 in view of the structure disclosed by Mayfield ‘818, the method of operating the device would have been obvious, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device could be used.
Regarding claim 20, Mayfield ‘818 discloses a method of elevating a laptop, the method comprising the following steps: providing a laptop raiser device comprising a body component 200 in a cylindrical shape with a flattened horizontal side (note flattened surface at 214/215/216 – also note that body is also flattened when placed on a surface); positioning the body component 200 on its flattened side (note 214/215/216 supporting body – and flat sides of 214/215/216 – support body relative to the surface); positioning a laptop onto the body component to be elevated at an angle (fig. 2bc); and sliding out an arm 405 to hold a smart device.
Noting that Mayfield ‘818 teaches “another non-restrictive version of the amorphous bag apparatus 400 having a cylindrical shape” para 0061. Noting that apparatus 400 includes a one sliding arm 405 to support a device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to use multiple arms 405 to support a variety of electronic devices, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Further, Grant ‘014 teaches a device holding assembly including utilizing a charge port 64 (fig. 1). Noting that Mayfield ‘818 teaches that the body components may be configured to “electrically connect a mobile device … to enhance the antenna of the mobile device for better Wi-Fi, cellular phone signal or other signal reception” para 0051. So to include a port or other electrical components, as taught in Grant ‘014, would be an obvious modification and expected addition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to modify any surface of the body component of Mayfield ‘818 with the charging port as taught in Grant ‘014 so that a user may charge their device while supporting the device relative to the support assembly. Noting that duplicating the charge port on any surface of the body component, so that the device may charge multiple devices, would also be an obvious modification, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and could be used in subsequent office action rejections, as applicable.
The list of supports is as follows: US-8777174-B2 OR US-11677250-B2 OR US-8882062-B2 OR US-9628913-B2 OR US-9689523-B2 OR US-10238206-B2 OR US-8518510-B1 OR US-3868085-A OR US-20190116680-A1 OR US-20160219727-A1 OR US-20160066717-A1 OR US-20140054426-A1 OR US-20060108493-A1 OR US-20180174584-A1 OR US-8757374-B1 OR US-20140291469-A1 OR US-1867765-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632