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 .
Drawings
Figure 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Specification, in paragraph [0008] recites “[FIG. 5] This shows an attached state of a conventional cover component to a scientific electronic calculator”. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “FIG. 4 shows, with a dash-dot-dot line, the state in which the extension 22 of the cover component 20 has not elastically deformed” as described in the specification (paragraph [0017]). In figure 4, a dash-dot-dot line is used to represent a portion of the rear case 15; however, said line does not seem to be representing extension 22 or a portion/state of it. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0017] recites “abutting the rear-side parts of the lateral faces 15a of the scientific electrotonic calculator 10”. The term “electrotonic” should read electronic.
The paragraph numbering is improper. For instance, paragraph [0010] appears to encompass multiple paragraphs as suggested by multiple sections of text being physically separated by new lines and indentations. The same objection is raised for all similar instances in the instant specification (e.g., [0010], [0011], [0012], [0013], etc.).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-23 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.
Regarding Claim 13, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “hook part” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a flat member”, while the accepted meaning is “a piece of metal or other material, curved or bent back at an angle, for catching hold of or hanging things on”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The term “hook part” is misdescriptive of the structure disclosed in the drawings (e.g., 23, figs 3A-B) because it is missing the curved shape ordinarily associated with the term “hook”. Examiner suggest the following terms “engagement tab”, “lug”, “catch”, “projection”, or, “protuberance”, as possible alternatives.
Claim 16, in lines 3-4, recites “wherein protrusions each being the protrusion are formed to be shorter than the hook part”. This limitation is confusing because it uses singular and plural forms to refer to the same structural concept. Although “protrusion” has an antecedent basis in Claim 13, the use of the plural “protrusions” and the verb “being” in the phrase “each being the protrusion” suggests a one to one identity and creates an internal contradiction. A person of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim in an unequivocal way. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be read as: wherein the protrusion comprises a plurality of protrusions formed to be shorter than the hook part.
Claims 14-23 are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
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.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP S63261898 A, and Kaneda hereinafter) in view of Vision4 (Non-Patent Literature document cited in PTO-892 attached in this office action, and Vision4 hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 13, Kaneda discloses a cover component attachable to and detachable from an electronic device body, comprising:
a hook part (including 4b and surface I, annotated figure I. See also fig. 9) that stands in a first direction (annotated figure I) and engages a recess (portion of 3, through which 4b is inserted, fig. 10) provided in a lateral face of a device body (3, fig. 10); and
a protrusion (4d, fig. 9) that regulates a position of the device body in the first direction (horizontal direction, figs. 9-10) by the protrusion and a rib (6a, fig. 9) being superposed when the cover component is attached to the electronic device body (figs. 9-10), the rib being provided adjacent to the recess in the lateral face of the device body (fig. 10).
Kaneda does not disclose the device body is electronic.
Vision4 discloses an electronic device body (electronic components inherently in the TV/Monitor device shown in figure of page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaneda to incorporate the teachings of Vision4 so that the device body is an electronic device body, in order to provide television functionality to users. Said modification could be made by modifying the device body to include the electronic components housed in the rear cover of the device disclosed by
PNG
media_image1.png
925
1452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vision4.
Regarding Claim 14, Kaneda/Vision4 discloses the cover component according to claim 13, wherein the protrusion protrudes from a surface of the cover component to one side in the first direction (fig. 9 of Kaneda), and is provided adjacent to the hook part to have a protruding height lower than the hook part (length of 4d along horizontal direction in fig. 10 of Kaneda is less than that of 4b).
Regarding Claim 15, Kaneda/Vision4 discloses the cover component according to claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose the first direction is a direction corresponding to a longitudinal direction of the electronic device body.
Vision4 further discloses a first direction corresponding to a longitudinal direction of an electronic device body (direction perpendicular to front display shown in figure of page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kaneda/Vision4 to incorporate the additional teachings of Vision4 so that the first direction is a direction corresponding to a longitudinal direction of the electronic device body, in order to receive electronic devices with form factors having the longest axis oriented perpendicular to the display screen. Said modification would be considered a mere change in proportions. Changes in size/proportions have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See also MPEP § 2144.04, A).
Regarding Claim 16 (as best understood), Kaneda/Vision4 discloses the cover component according to claim 13,
wherein the hook part extends in a second direction (annotated figure I above) and
wherein protrusions each being the protrusion are formed to be shorter than the hook part in the second direction and provided along the hook part (annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 17 (as best understood), Kaneda/Vision4 discloses the cover component according to claim 16, wherein two of the protrusions are provided at both end sides of the hook part in the second direction to be apart from one another (annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 18, Kaneda/Vision4 discloses the cover component according to claim 13,
wherein in a state in which the cover component is attached to the electronic device body, a cover body of the cover component covers a predetermined face of the electronic device body (fig. 1 of Kaneda, when 2 is attached to the electronic device, it would cover its front face), and
wherein the protrusion is provided at, of both sides of the hook part in a direction corresponding to a thickness direction of the electronic device body, only a side closer to the cover body (thickness direction defined as direction from 2 to 3 in fig. 1, and from left to right in fig. 10; figs. 9-10 show protrusion 4b is located only on the left side of 4b, which is the side closer to body of 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Kaneda/Vision4 discloses an electronic device unit comprising:
the cover component according to claim 13; and
the electronic device body to and from which the cover component is attachable and detachable (see rejection of Claim 13 above).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda and Vision4 in view of Mukougawa (US 20050062372 A1, and Mukougawa hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 20, Kaneda/Vision4 discloses the electronic device unit according to claim 19 but does not disclose the lateral face in which the recess is provided is formed in a curved shape to bulge as the lateral face gets closer to the recess in a thickness direction of the electronic device body, and wherein a direction in which the lateral face bulges is opposite to a direction in which the hook part that engages the recess protrudes.
Mukougawa discloses an electronic device body wherein a lateral face (6, fig. 1) in which a recess (16, fig. 6) is provided is formed in a curved shape (fig. 1) to bulge as the lateral face gets closer to the recess in a thickness direction of the device body (fig. 6; thickness direction being vertical), and wherein a direction in which the lateral face bulges (left direction, fig. 6) is opposite to a direction in which a hook part (13, fig. 6) that engages the recess protrudes (right direction, fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaneda and Vision4 to incorporate the teachings of Mukougawa so that the lateral face in which the recess is provided is formed in a curved shape to bulge as the lateral face gets closer to the recess in a thickness direction of the electronic device body, and wherein a direction in which the lateral face bulges is opposite to a direction in which the hook part that engages the recess protrudes, in order to provide a soft and more appealing appearance (“the two side plates of the lower case and the two side plates of the upper case may be curved and bulged outward so that the appearance is soft and beautiful”, [0013] of Mukougawa). Absent disclosure of any mechanical function, said modification would be considered an aesthetic design change, which carries no patentable weight (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). See also MPEP § 2144.04, I).
Regarding Claim 21, Kaneda/Vision4 discloses the electronic device unit according to claim 19 but does not explicitly disclose the recess is a groove extending in a second direction.
Mukougawa discloses a recess (16, fig. 6) is a groove extending in a second direction (front-back direction in fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaneda and Vision4 to incorporate the teachings of Mukougawa so that the recess is a groove extending in a second direction, in order to enhance the mechanical resistance of the coupling (forming a through hole would necessarily requires cutting/removing material and increases the risk of cracks).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 are 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, and also if every 112(b) issue is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 22, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “an extension provided with the hook part and the protrusion, and wherein when the cover component is attached to the electronic device body, a biasing force to one side in the first direction acts on the extension, and the protrusion abuts the rib”. Kaneda (JP S63261898 A), Cariker (US 20150062800 A1), Lu (US 20070274054 A1), Kim (US 20120308865 A1), Lee (US 9507382 B2), Shell (US 20210376520 A1), Corsi (US 4942271 A), Mann (US 20230073013 A1), Hoh (US 5308941 A), and Siddiqui (US 20190243412 A1) are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an electronic device unit, a cover, an extension, and/or a hook part. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
For instance, Kaneda discloses a cover component comprising a hook part (4b, fig. 9) that engages a recess (fig. 10) provided in a lateral face of a device body (3, fig. 10); and a protrusion (4d, fig. 9) that regulates a position of the device body in the first direction (figs. 9-10) by the protrusion and a rib (6a, fig. 9) being superposed when the cover component is attached to the electronic device body (figs. 9-10), wherein the cover further comprises an extension (flat portion of 4b, fig. 9) provided with the hook part and the protrusion but lacks when the cover component is attached to the electronic device body, a biasing force to one side in the first direction acts on the extension. Cariker discloses a component (34, fig. 5) comprising an extension (38, fig. 5) and a hook part (24, fig. 5), wherein when the component is attached to an electronic device body, a biasing force to one side in a first direction acts on the extension; however, in Cariker, when the extension is engaged (fig. 5), a horizontal biasing force (I.e., parallel to the direction of deflection) would be produced. Said force would not be the same direction in which the hook part stands (defined as firs direction in claim 1 above), thus the direction of the biasing force of Cariker would not be compatible with the first direction of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 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, 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.
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841