DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of species III, Fig. 3 (claims 1-5, 7 and 9-11) in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to articulate facts that demonstrate that a serious search or examination burden would be placed upon the Office if not so restricted. This is not found persuasive because Examiner already explained in the restriction requirement that the species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The species require a different field of search ( e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. Applicant also failed to articulate why those species will not create a serious burden or that the species are obvious variant.
Claims 6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/24/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
“side button frame 211” and “display frame 212” appear to be flipped in Figs. 1-3.
“side button sensor 5” appear in two different locations in Figs. 1-3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 7-22 of copending Application No. 18/733004 (claims dated on 12/23/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 18/733004 teaches everything except difference in wording. For example, housing comprising an upper housing body and a lower housing body is equivalent of a case having a top surface and a bottom surface, a three-dimensional antenna bracket (imply having antenna module) is just a support frame and antenna module, a side button circuit board (implying a side button sensor) is equivalent of side button control board and a side button sensor, etc.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented even though the claims were allowed on 2/27/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 11,349,207; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a tablet device (col. 6, ln. 35: “…tablet PCs…”), comprising:
a case (202 and/or 501, Figs. 12B-15) having a top surface (top surface of 202, Fig. 14A) and a bottom surface (bottom surface of 202, Fig. 14A), wherein a side button frame (frame of 202 around 123 in Figs. 13B(b), 14A) is provided on one side edge of the top surface;
a metal support plate (202c to 202b Figs. 13B) arranged in the case, wherein a hollow part is provided on one side edge (side of 202c) of the metal support plate that corresponds to the side button frame (see Fig. 13B(b)), such that the hollow part forms a space in the case (as shown in Fig. 13B(b));
a support frame (1020 and/or 1030, Fig. 15) arranged in the space;
a side button sensor (same as 123, Fig. 13B(b)) arranged in the side button frame;
a side button control board (not labeled, but board on left side of 123 shown in Fig. 13B(b)) arranged on the one side edge of the metal support plate; and
an antenna module (ANT2, Figs. 13A-15) arranged in the space;
wherein the side button sensor, the support frame, and the antenna module are substantially overlapped with one another (as shown in Figs. 13B(b) and 15).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the tablet device according to claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein the support frame abuts against the side button sensor (1030 abut 123, Fig. 15; col. 38, lns. 52-59).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the tablet device according to claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein the side button control board faces the space (as shown in Fig. 13B(b)).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the tablet device according to claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein the antenna module is a multiple-input and multiple-output antenna for a wireless wide area network (ANT2 is MIMO and can support 4G and 5G bands).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the tablet device according to claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein the top surface is further provided with a display frame (frame around 151, Fig. 2B) for fixedly arranging a display panel (151, Fig. 2B).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2025/0167430; hereinafter “Wu”). The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a tablet device (Figs. 1-8), comprising:
a case (2) having a top surface (21) and a bottom surface (22), wherein a side button frame (212) is provided on one side edge of the top surface (as shown in Fig. 1);
a metal support plate (3) arranged in the case, wherein a hollow part (34 and space under 34 in Figs. 5, 6) is provided on one side edge of the metal support plate that corresponds to the side button frame, such that the hollow part forms a space in the case;
a support frame (4) arranged in the space;
a side button sensor (button of 5) arranged in the side button frame;
a side button control board (board of 5) arranged on the one side edge of the metal support plate; and
an antenna module (42) arranged in the space;
wherein the side button sensor, the support frame, and the antenna module are substantially overlapped with one another (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the tablet device according to claim 1, and Wu further discloses wherein the side button control board faces the space (bottom 5 faces the space as shown in Figs. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses the tablet device according to claim 1, and Wu further discloses wherein the antenna module is a type of three-dimensional antenna (4 is a three-dimensional antenna).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses the tablet device according to claim 1, and Wu further discloses wherein the top surface is further provided with a display frame (211) for fixedly arranging a display panel (6, Fig. 1).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of Park et al. (US 12,555,891; hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the tablet device according to claim 3. Kim does not teach wherein the side button control board is coupled to the side button sensor by a flexible flat cable. However, Park teaches a side button control board (340, Fig. 3A) is coupled to a side button sensor (same as 330, Fig. 3A) by a flexible flat cable (same as 360, Fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the side button control board is coupled to the side button sensor by a flexible flat cable in Kim, as taught by Park, in order to easily electrically couple the two elements using common connector such as a flexible flat cable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of Qi et al. (US 6,031,505; hereinafter “Qi ‘505”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the tablet device according to claim 1. Kim does not teach wherein the support frame is a plastic component. However, Qi ‘505 teaches wherein the support frame is a plastic component (40, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the support frame is a plastic component in Kim, as taught by Qi ‘505, in order to easily and cheaply use plastic to shape the desired configuration of the support frame.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of Qi et al. (US 7,612,726; hereinafter “Qi ‘726”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the tablet device according to claim 1. Kim does not teach wherein the antenna module is a type of three-dimensional antenna. However, Qi ‘726 teaches an antenna module is a type of three-dimensional antenna (col. 6, lns. 28-40: “… antenna 45 may advantageously be implemented in three dimensions…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the antenna module is a type of three-dimensional antenna in Kim, as taught by Qi ‘726, in order to optimize the space inside the tablet device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Re claim 7, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the tablet device according to claim 7, in particular, wherein the support frame is an L-shaped bracket and is configured to be clamped to the one side edge of the metal support plate and the bottom surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights