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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/857,115 for a SINGLE OR DUAL DISPLAY MOUNTING APPARATUS, filed on 10/15/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because RN 70 on the left side of Fig. 4 appears to be incomplete. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "572A" and "572B" have both been used to designate a second hinge. 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. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 1-16 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 contains the limitation wherein “the articulating arm assembly is configured in either one of a single arm configuration or a dual arm configuration” but then later in claim 3 sets forth “wherein first connector and the second connector are configured to be coupled to each other in the single arm configuration, and wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to be positioned away from each other and adapted to translate independent of each other in the dual arm configuration,” which appears to be a scenario wherein the system is used in both a single arm configuration and a dual arm configuration. Applicant needs to clarify whether the claims intend to provide for adjustability for both a single arm configuration and a dual arm configuration since they operate independently of each other. Further, in the depending claims, applicant needs to clarify whether the claim limitations are directed to the single arm configuration or the dual arm configuration. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the holding bracket” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le (U.S. Pub. 2009/0034178).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Le teaches an electronic display mounting system comprising: one or more electronic display interfaces (3, 4); a support assembly adapted to couple to a structure, the support assembly including: a mounting bracket configured to couple to the structure; and an articulating arm assembly operably coupled between the one or more electronic display interfaces and the mounting bracket; the articulating arm assembly comprises: a first pair of pivotally connected arms (left members 2) including: a first end rotatably coupled to the mounting bracket: and a second end rotatably coupled to the one or more display interfaces; and a second pair of pivotally connected arms (right members 2) including: a first end rotatably coupled to the mounting bracket; and a second end rotatably coupled to the one or more display interfaces; wherein the articulating arm assembly is configured in either one of a single arm configuration or a dual arm configuration (single arm shown below), and wherein the articulating arm assembly is configured to translate the one or more electronic display interfaces between a first position proximate the mounting bracket and a second position (shown below) spaced apart from the mounting bracket.
[AltContent: textbox (Mounting bracket)]
PNG
media_image1.png
460
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Articulating arm assembly)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st connector)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd connector)][AltContent: textbox (2nd end)][AltContent: textbox (1st end)]
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Le teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the structure is selected from a group consisting of a desk surface, a wall, a pole, a cabinet, a support column, a cart, and a rack (wall).
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.
Claim(s) 3-10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (U.S. Pub. 2009/0034178) in view of Smed (U.S. Pat. 9,746,124).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Le teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the articulating arm assembly also comprises: a first connector built in the second end of the first pair of pivotally connected arms; and a second connector built in the second end of the second pair of pivotally connected arms; wherein first connector and the second connector are configured to be coupled to each other in the single arm configuration, but does not teach that the first connector and the second connector are configured to be positioned away from each other and adapted to translate independent of each other in the dual arm configuration. Smed, however, teaches a mounting system with an articulating arm assembly comprising a first and second pair of pivotally connected arms (left and right members 101) comprising a first connector (left member 101c) and the second connector (right member 101c, not labeled) are configured to be positioned away from each other and adapted to translate independent of each other in the dual arm configuration in order to support a plurality of electronic display interfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to substitute the first and second connecting members of Le wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to be positioned away from each other and adapted to translate independent of each other in a dual arm configuration in order to support various electronic display interfaces at different positions in an mounting system ecosystem to view various screens at different positions for greater flexibility.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 3, wherein Le teaches that the first connector is elevated relative to the second connector (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 4, wherein Le teaches that the first connector and the second connector overlap and coupled to each other in the single arm configuration.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 3, wherein Le teaches that the electronic display mounting system further comprises a holding bracket (6), and wherein the first connector and the second connector are rotatably coupled to the holding bracket in the single arm configuration.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 6, wherein Le teaches that the one or more electronic display interfaces are coupled to the holding bracket in the single arm configuration (all members are coupled to each other).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 5, wherein Smed teaches that the electronic display mounting system further comprises a spacer (104), and wherein the spacer is coupled to one or both of the first connector and the second connector in the dual arm configuration.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 8, wherein Smed teaches that the one or more electronic display interfaces (Fig. 2) include a first electronic display interface (204) and a second electronic display interface (204), and wherein the first electronic display interface is adapted to be rotatably coupled to the first connector (via member 203) and the second electronic display interface is adapted to be rotatably coupled to the second connector (via member 203).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 8, wherein Smed teaches that the electronic display mounting system further comprises a spanner bracket (110) having a first end and a second end (left end and right end), and wherein the first end is adapted to be rotatably coupled to the first connector (indirectly, via member 104) and the second end is adapted to be rotatably coupled to the second connector (indirectly, via member 104).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 10, wherein Smed teaches that the one or more electronic display interfaces are coupled to the spanner bracket.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 7, wherein Smed teaches that one or more electronic displays (monitor display screen, not shown) are coupled to the one or more electronic display interfaces; and wherein the articulating arm assembly is adapted to provide articulation for the one or more electronic displays relative to the mounting bracket simultaneously.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 12, wherein Smed teaches that the one or more electronic displays (monitor display screen, not shown) are coupled to the one or more electronic display interfaces, and wherein the articulating arm assembly is adapted to provide articulation to the one or more electronic displays relative to the mounting bracket simultaneously.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 10, wherein Le teaches one or more mechanical fasteners and one or more nuts (taper type bolt and nut) in order to assemble members together, but does not specifically teach the one or more mechanical fasteners are inserted through the one or more of the holding bracket, a first electronic display interface, the first pair of pivotally connected arms, the second pair of pivotally connected arms, the spacer and the spanner bracket to configure the articulating arm assembly in one of the single arm configuration or the dual arm configuration, selectively, and one or more nuts; wherein the one or more fasteners are threadedly engaged with the one or more nuts to secure the articulating arm assembly in one of the single arm configuration or the dual arm configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, wherein one or more mechanical fasteners are inserted through the one or more of the holding bracket, a first electronic display interface, the first pair of pivotally connected arms, the second pair of pivotally connected arms, the spacer and the spanner bracket to configure the articulating arm assembly in one of the single arm configuration or the dual arm configuration, selectively, and one or more nuts; wherein the one or more fasteners are threadedly engaged with the one or more nuts to secure the articulating arm assembly in one of the single arm configuration or the dual arm configuration in order to assemble the members together in a wide variety of configurations for holding one or multiple electronic device interfaces, and further, the use of a mechanical fastener and a nut to secure members together in the fastening art would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (U.S. Pub. 2009/0034178) in view of Smed (U.S. Pat. 9,797,544).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Le teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the articulating arm assembly also comprises: a first connector built in the second end of the first pair of pivotally connected arms; and a second connector built in the second end of the second pair of pivotally connected arms; wherein first connector and the second connector are configured to be coupled to each other in the single arm configuration, but does not teach that the first connector and the second connector are configured to be positioned away from each other and adapted to translate independent of each other in the dual arm configuration. Smed, however, teaches a mounting system (Fig. 1) with an articulating arm assembly comprising a first and second pair of pivotally connected arms (left and right members 106) comprising a first connector (at end of left member 106) built in the second end of the first pair of pivotally connected arms; and a second connector (at end of right member 106) built in the second end of the second pair of pivotally connected arms, wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to be positioned away from each other and adapted to translate independent of each other in the dual arm configuration in order to support a plurality of electronic display interfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to substitute the first and second connectors of Le wherein the first connector and the second connector are configured to be positioned away from each other and adapted to translate independent of each other in a dual arm configuration in order to support various electronic display interfaces in different positions in an mounting system ecosystem to view various screens at different ecosystem to view various screens at different positions for greater flexibility.
[AltContent: textbox (1st electronic display interface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (spacer)]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd electronic display interface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
780
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st connector)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd connector)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st pair of pivotally connected arms)]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd pair of pivotally connected arms)]
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 3, wherein Le teaches that the first connector is elevated relative to the second connector.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 4, wherein Le teaches that the first connector and the second connector overlap and coupled to each other in the single arm configuration.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 5, wherein Smed teaches that the electronic display mounting system further comprises a spacer (see figure above), and wherein the spacer is coupled to one or both of the first connector and the second connector in the dual arm configuration.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 8, wherein Smed teaches one or more electronic display interfaces include a first electronic display interface and a second electronic display interface, and wherein the first electronic display interface is adapted to be rotatably coupled to the first connector and the second electronic display interface is adapted to be rotatably coupled to the second connector.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Le and Smed teach the system of claim 9, wherein Smed teaches that a first electronic display (computer monitor screen) is coupled to the first electronic display interface and a second electronic display (computer monitor screen) is coupled to the second electronic display interface, and wherein the articulating arm assembly is adapted to provide articulation to the first electronic display and the second electronic display independent of each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 7984888, 8245990, 11215313 (electronic display mounting systems).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 January 7, 2026