DETAILED ACTION
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 2-6 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 2 recites the limitation "the rear glass housing member" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-6 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 2.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by White (6,532,152).
Regarding Claim 1: White teaches an electronic device, comprising: a display (114) comprising a capacitive touch sensor (col. 7 lines 29-45); a display cover glass (212) overlapping the display (figs. 2-3b); a metal frame (302); and a molded plastic member (300) that supports the display cover glass (figs. 2-3b) and is coupled to the metal frame (figs. 2-3b).
Regarding Claim 7: White teaches the display covers most of a front face of the electronic device (figs. 2-3b).
Regarding Claim 8: White teaches the molded plastic member is overmolded onto the metal frame (col. 11 lines 26-50).
Regarding Claim 11: White teaches an electronic device, comprising: a touch-sensitive display (114 and col 7 lines 29-45); a cover glass (212) overlapping the touch-sensitive display (figs. 2-3b); and a frame (figs. 2-3b) that supports the cover glass (figs. 2-3b), wherein the frame comprises a metal frame member (302) and molded plastic (300) and wherein the molded plastic is sandwiched between the cover glass and the metal frame member (figs. 2-3b).
Regarding Claim 12: White teaches the frame comprises a ledge (fig. 3b showing portion of 300) and wherein the cover glass is mounted to the ledge (figs. 2-3b).
Regarding Claim 13: White teaches further comprising an antenna (225, 227) configured for cellular communications (col. 10 lines 27-44).
Regarding Claim 14: White teaches the molded plastic is overmolded onto the metal frame member (col. 11 lines 26-50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-6 and 15-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over White (6,532,152) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Caballero (2008/0074329).
Regarding Claim 2: White teaches further comprising: a rear housing member (206); and a housing member (204) that extends between the display cover glass and the rear housing member (figs. 2-3b), wherein the metal housing member extends at least partially around a perimeter of the display (figs. 2-3b), but lacks a specific teaching of the housing member being made of metal or the rear housing member being made of glass.
Caballero teaches the housing member being made of metal (paragraph [0053]) and the rear housing member being made of glass (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the rear housing member being made of glass as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a thin more sleek and versatile profile of the apparatus allowing the user an easier ability to make the device mobile while still holding the standards of structural integrity of the housing for the device.
Regarding Claim 3: White teaches the metal frame (302) is coupled to the housing member (204) with first and second screws (324), but lacks a specific teaching of the housing member being made of metal.
Caballero teaches the housing member being made of metal (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the housing member being made of metal as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a stronger more reinforced frame portion of the apparatus in order to better protect the internal components of the device which in turn decreases the chances of damage to the components requiring repair or replacement of the components.
Regarding Claim 4: White teaches a data port (228) between the first and second screws (figs. 2-3b).
Regarding Claim 5: White teaches further comprising a gasket (314) interposed between the display cover glass and the housing member (figs. 2-3b), but lacks a specific teaching of the housing member being made of metal.
Caballero teaches the housing member being made of metal (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the housing member being made of metal as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a stronger more reinforced frame portion of the apparatus in order to better protect the internal components of the device which in turn decreases the chances of damage to the components requiring repair or replacement of the components.
Regarding Claim 6: White lacks a specific teaching of the rear housing member comprises glass.
Caballero teaches the rear housing member comprises glass (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the rear housing member comprises glass as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a thin more sleek and versatile profile of the apparatus allowing the user an easier ability to make the device mobile while still holding the standards of structural integrity of the housing for the device.
Regarding Claim 15: White teaches further comprising: a housing member (204); first and second screws (324) that couple the metal frame member to the housing member (figs. 2-3b); and a data port (228) between the first and second screws (figs. 2-3b), but lacks a specific teaching of the housing member being made of metal.
Caballero teaches the housing member being made of metal (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the housing member being made of metal as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a stronger more reinforced frame portion of the apparatus in order to better protect the internal components of the device which in turn decreases the chances of damage to the components requiring repair or replacement of the components.
Regarding Claim 16: White teaches an electronic device, comprising: a light emitting diode display (114 in col. 6 line 63-col. 7 line 9); a cover layer (212) overlapping the light-emitting diode display (figs. 2-3b); a capacitive touch sensor (col. 7 lines 29-45) configured to detect touch input on the cover layer (col. 7 lines 29-45); a metal frame (302) that supports the cover layer (figs. 2-3b); and a molded plastic member (300) interposed between the cover layer and the metal frame (figs. 2-3b), but lacks a specific teaching of the display being an organic light-emitting diode display
Caballero teaches the display being an organic light-emitting diode display (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the display being an organic light-emitting diode display as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a thin more sleek and versatile profile of the apparatus allowing the user an easier ability to make the device mobile while still holding the standards of structural integrity of the housing for the device while it is noted that OLED displays are a known display in the field to replace or swap with LED displays.
Regarding Claim 17: White teaches wherein the cover layer (212) comprises glass (col. 14 lines 49-60).
Regarding Claim 18: White teaches further comprising a housing member (204) coupled to the metal frame (fig. 3b) with first and second screws (324), but lacks a specific teaching of the housing member being made of metal.
Caballero teaches the housing member being made of metal (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the housing member being made of metal as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a stronger more reinforced frame portion of the apparatus in order to better protect the internal components of the device which in turn decreases the chances of damage to the components requiring repair or replacement of the components.
Regarding Claim 19: White teaches the housing member (204) has an opening (218) that forms a speaker port (fig. 2), but lacks a specific teaching of the housing member being made of metal.
Caballero teaches the housing member being made of metal (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the housing member being made of metal as disclosed by Caballero in order to allow for a stronger more reinforced frame portion of the apparatus in order to better protect the internal components of the device which in turn decreases the chances of damage to the components requiring repair or replacement of the components.
Regarding Claim 20: White teaches further comprising a data port (228) between the first and second screws (figs. 2-3b).
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over White (6,532,152) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Wu (2007/0155436).
Regarding Claim 9: White teaches the housing member has a cutaway portion to accommodate a speaker, but lacks a teaching of the cutaway being in the display cover glass.
Wu teaches a cutaway (161) for a speaker (13) being in a display cover glass (16 and paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having a cutaway for a speaker being in a display cover glass as disclosed by Wu in order to allow the user to more clearly hear the audio from the apparatus and decrease any interference from either music or other audio coming from the speakers.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over White (6,532,152) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Gettemy (7,688,315).
Regarding Claim 10: White lacks a specific teaching of the capacitive touch sensor comprises a capacitive multitouch touch sensor.
Gettemy teaches the capacitive touch sensor comprises a capacitive multitouch touch sensor (col. 8 lines 10-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of White by having the capacitive touch sensor comprises a capacitive multitouch touch sensor as disclosed by Gettemy in order to allow for a more complex set of input sensors for the user which will make for a more accurate sensor reading form the apparatus decreasing the chances of errors on the apparatus from the touch input.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841