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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 9 shows two “47”, and one of them is not pointing to a “pin 47”.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a snap-fit connecting assembly” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao et al. (US 11,249,518; hereinafter “Liao”).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses a slide winding display device (Figs. 1-54), comprising:
a stationary housing (same as 1293+1424+1423, Fig. 24; also 142+1421, Figs. 15-16);
at least one sliding housing (same as 1292, 1291, Fig. 24; also 124, 126, R1-R4 in Figs. 3-4, 20-21, 35-35), slidably connected to an edge of the stationary housing, wherein the edge of the stationary housing extends along a first direction (extends left and right as shown from Fig. 23 to Fig. 24; or extends left and right as shown from Fig. 34 to Fig. 35);
at least one elastic assembly (1254, Figs. 20-21), wherein the elastic assembly comprises a first elastic member (1254, Figs. 20-21), one end of the first elastic member abuts against the stationary housing (top end abut spindle/screw of 1429 of 142 in Fig. 16), and another end of the first elastic member abuts against the sliding housing (abuts R1 and R2, Figs. 20-21); and
a snap-fit connecting assembly (assembly 1274, 151, 157, 17, etc. shown at bottom of Figs. 20-21; note that 157 perform snap-fit), configured to connect the sliding housing and the stationary housing.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR102122064 (hereinafter “KR”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, KR discloses a slide winding display device (Figs. 1-28), comprising:
a stationary housing (same as 3, Fig. 1; can be stationary relative to 4);
at least one sliding housing (same as 4, Fig. 1), slidably connected to an edge of the stationary housing (see Fig. 3), wherein the edge of the stationary housing extends along a first direction (X axis, Fig. 1);
at least one elastic assembly (51, 52, Fig. 1), wherein the elastic assembly comprises a first elastic member (such as 53, Fig. 1), one end of the first elastic member abuts against the stationary housing (left end of 53), and another end of the first elastic member abuts against the sliding housing (right end of 53); and
a snap-fit connecting assembly (6, Figs. 1, 7, 17-18; 61, Figs. 17-18), configured to connect the sliding housing and the stationary housing.
Regarding claim 5, KR discloses the slide winding display device according to claim 1, and KR further discloses wherein the stationary housing is provided with a mounting cavity (top and bottom cavity of 3 in Fig. 1), the elastic assembly is arranged in the mounting cavity, the elastic assembly further comprises a mounting base (left vertical side of cavity in 3 can be considered as base in Fig. 1) and a guide pillar (the horizontal sides of the cavity in 3 forms a guided pillar in Fig. 1), the mounting base is arranged in the mounting cavity, the guide pillar is fixed on the mounting base and extends along the first direction, the first elastic member is assembled on the guide pillar, and the first elastic member passes through a through hole (hole in 51, 52) provided in the mounting base and abuts against the sliding housing (as shown in Fig. 1 and 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claims 2-4 and 7-18, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the slide winding display device according to claim 2, in particular, wherein at least one sliding housing comprises two sliding housings, the at least one elastic assembly comprises at least one pair of elastic assemblies, the two sliding housings are slidably connected to two edges of the stationary housing that extend along the first direction, the pair of elastic assemblies comprises two elastic assemblies, first elastic members of the two elastic assemblies have first ends abutting against the stationary housing, and second ends of the first elastic members of the two elastic assemblies abut against the two sliding housings respectively.
Re claim 6, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the slide winding display device according to claim 6, in particular, wherein the slide winding display device further comprises a spring base, the first elastic member is at least partially arranged in the spring base, the spring base extends into the mounting base, one end of the spring base away from the sliding housing is provided with a stop part, and the stop part has a larger size than the through hole.
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