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 4-15, 17-21, 30, 33 and 40 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 4 recites the limitation "coupling" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claims 4-15, 17-21, 30, 33 and 40 are thereby rejected and will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant claims “another monitor,” “the other monitor,” and “the monitor.” It is unclear to the examiner what invention the application is claiming as the examiner cannot ascertain which monitor applicant is referring to as “the monitor” as presently claimed in at least independent claim 5. Claims 5, 8, 14, 15, 17 and 30 have thereby been rejected and be examined as best understood.
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) 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 33 and 40 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrugia (US7684185).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Farrugia discloses a system comprising:
a monitor mount (108) including a support portion (Base of 108);
a first monitor (112) including a first electronic visual display (Column 2, Lines 58-67); and
a second monitor (102) including: (i) a second electronic visual display (104); and (ii) a receptacle (110) including a bridge portion (top of 110) and a guiding surface (sides of 110) configured to receive the first monitor to be inserted into the receptacle in
a first position secured within the second monitor,
wherein: the second monitor is configured to be detachably (Column 2, L:ine 29, removable) secured to the monitor mount; the first monitor is configured to be detachably secured to the second monitor by the coupling (122) such that the first monitor is received in the receptacle of the second monitor.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the system of claim 4, wherein: the receptacle of the second monitor includes two parallel surfaces (Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the coupling includes at least one guiding surface configured to initially receive the first monitor and thereafter guide the first monitor to a secured position within the second monitor.
*Examiner’s Position: The entry surface bay be called the guiding surface, while providing the same function.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the bridge portion of the second monitor includes a lateral slot (110)* and a top portion of the first monitor is configured to be transversely inserted into the lateral slot.
*Meriam-Webster defines “lateral,’ as: of or relating to the side; situated on, directed toward, or coming from the side.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the second monitor includes a handle. (The user holding the top of the monitor)
Regarding claim 33, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the second monitor (102) is configured to visualize at least a portion of received data on the second electronic visual display.
Regarding claim 40, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the system of claim 4, wherein: the first monitor (112) is configured to be transversely inserted into and removed from the second monitor (102) from each of a first lateral direction of the second monitor (102) and a second lateral direction of the- second monitor; and the first lateral direction of the second monitor is opposite to the second lateral direction of the second monitor.
Claim(s) 5, 14, 15, 17 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrugia (US7684185).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Farrugia discloses a monitor comprising: an electronic visual display (Column 2, Lines 58-67); and a receptacle (110) including a support portion and a coupling (122), wherein: the coupling is configured to detachably secure another monitor (102) such that the other monitor (112) is received in the receptacle of the monitor; and the monitor is configured to surround at least a portion of an electronic visual display of the other monitor when the other monitor is detachably secured to the monitor; and the receptacle has one or more of an open side portion and an open top portion for receiving the other monitor. (Figure 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Farrugia discloses monitor of claim 5, wherein the support portion is configured to support a bottom face of the other monitor. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the support portion is configured to detachably secure a handle of the second monitor. (the user holding the top of the monitor)
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the monitor of claim 5, wherein the support portion includes a release mechanism (Column 4, Lines 55-6) for releasing the second monitor from the monitor mount.
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, Farrugia discloses the monitor of claim 5, wherein at least one of the coupling and the support portion is a magnetic coupling. (Column 4, Lines 39-42)
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrugia (US7684185).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Farrugia discloses he system of claim 10.
Farrugia does not expressly disclose wherein the bridge portion of the second monitor and the handle of the second monitor are formed as a single unit.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the single unit into the bridge portion and handle of the second monitor as forming a single item that were previously two items involves only routine skill in the art.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as making elements integral is routine in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, 13, 18 and 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein the coupling includes at least one guiding surface configured to initially receive the first monitor at an angle such that the first monitor is rotated and thereafter guide the first monitor to a secured position within the second monitor, as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship, wherein the width of the bridge portion of the second monitor in the lateral direction of the second monitor is less than a width of the first monitor in a lateral direction of the first monitor, as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein a top portion of the second monitor includes holes for repositioning the bridge portion of the second monitor as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 4.
Regarding claims, 18 and 19-21 are indicated as allowable by virtue of dependency to claim 18, , the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein the monitor mount further comprises a power bus configured to power at least one of the first monitor and the second monitor when the at least one of the first monitor and the second monitor is secured to the monitor, as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20180242926.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xanthia C Cunningham whose telephone number is (571)270-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday -Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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 on 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.
/XANTHIA C RELFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
21 February 2026
5. A monitor comprising: an electronic visual display; and a receptacle including a support portion and a coupling, wherein: the coupling is configured to detachably secure another monitor such that the other monitor is received in the receptacle of the monitor; and the monitor is configured to surround at least a portion of an electronic visual display of the other monitor when the other monitor is detachably secured to the monitor; and the receptacle has one or more of an open side portion and an open top portion for receiving the other monitor.
8. The monitor of claim 5, wherein the coupling includes at least one guiding surface configured to initially receive the first monitor at an angle such that the first monitor is rotated and thereafter guide the first monitor to a secured position within the second monitor.
14. The monitor of claim 5, wherein the support portion is configured to support a bottom face of the other monitor.
15. The system of claim 5, wherein the support portion is configured to detachably secure a handle of the second monitor.
17. The monitor of claim 5, wherein the support portion includes a release mechanism for releasing the second monitor from the monitor mount.
30. The monitor of claim 5, wherein at least one of the coupling and the support portion is a magnetic coupling