CTNF 18/864,176 CTNF 82834 DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wharrad (2015/0293563) . Regarding Claim 1: Wharrad teaches a tablet dock system comprising: a dock (12), the dock comprising: a dock housing (fig. 2); a mating surface (44) formed by the dock housing (fig. 2) configured to allow a tablet computer (16) to be removably docked with the tablet dock system (figs. 1-2); and a strain gauge (paragraph [0042]) attached with the dock housing, the strain gauge being configured to perform measurements indicative of undocking of the tablet computer from the dock and docking of the tablet computer with the dock (paragraph [0042]). Regarding Claim 2: 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the strain gauge is located on a face of the dock for detecting shear force (paragraph [0044]). Regarding Claim 6: 6. The system of claim 1, further comprising one or more processors that determines whether the tablet is docking or undocking based on one or more received measurements from the strain gauge (paragraph [0045]-[0047]). Regarding Claim 7: 7. The system of claim 6, further comprising one or more electropermanent magnets located on the dock (paragraphs [0027]-[0031]), wherein the system releases the tablet computer from the dock by modifying a state of the one or more electropermanent magnets (paragraphs [027]-[0031]) based on the one or more received measurements from the strain gauge (paragraphs [0042] and [0045]-[0046]). Regarding Claim 8: Wharrad teaches a tablet computer system comprising: a dock (12); a tablet computer (16) which can be removably docked from the dock (figs. 1-2), the tablet computer comprising an electronic display (figs. 1-2); one or more force sensors (paragraph [0042]) formed on the dock and/or the tablet computer for detection of a force or pressure distribution associated with docking and/or undocking of the tablet computer from the dock (paragraph [0042]); and one or more processors (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]) configured to: determine a change from a first position of the tablet computer by detecting a change in the force or pressure distribution with the one or more force sensors (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]); and determine a second position of the tablet computer based at least in part on the change (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Regarding Claim 11: 11. The system of claim 8, wherein detecting the change in force or pressure distribution comprises comparing a measured force with a stored predefined force value (paragraphs [0042]-[0046]). Regarding Claim 12: Wharrad teaches wherein the one or more force sensors is formed on a face of the dock for detecting shear force (paragraph [0044]). Regarding Claim 14: Wharrad teaches wherein the one or more force sensors is formed on a wall of the dock (paragraphs [0044]). Regarding Claim 15: Wharrad teaches wherein the one or more force sensors include a strain gauge formed on the dock and/or the tablet computer (paragraphs [0042]). Regarding Claim 18: Wharrad teaches a method of tracking docking and undocking of a tablet computer from a dock, the method comprising: determining a force or pressure distribution from one or more force sensors interfaced, directly or indirectly, with the tablet computer (paragraphs [0042] and [0045]-[0046]); determining a change from an initial position of the tablet computer by detecting a change in the force or pressure distribution detected by the one or more force sensors (paragraphs [0042] and [0045]-[0046]); and based on the determination of the change, releasing the tablet computer from the dock (paragraphs [0042] and [0045]-[0046]) by modifying a state of electropermanent magnets located on the dock (paragraphs [0027]-[0031]). Regarding Claim 19: Wharrad teaches wherein the one or more force sensors is selected from the group consisting of: a strain gauge, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor, and a barometer (paragraph [0042]). Regarding Claim 20: Wharrad teaches wherein detecting the change in force or pressure distribution comprises comparing a measured force with a stored predefined force value (paragraphs [0042]-[0046]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 4, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharrad (2015/0293563) . Regarding Claim 3: Wharrad lacks a specific teaching of wherein the strain gauge is located on a bottom surface of the dock. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having the strain gauge is located on a bottom surface of the dock in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding Claim 4: Wharrad lacks a specific teaching of comprising four strain gauges formed on a bottom surface of the dock or on a face of the dock. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having four strain gauges formed on a bottom surface of the dock or on a face of the dock in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Regarding Claim 13: Wharrad lacks a specific teaching of wherein the one or more force sensors is formed on a bottom surface of the dock. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having the one or more force sensors is formed on a bottom surface of the dock in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding Claim 16: Wharrad lacks a specific teaching of comprising four strain gauges formed on a bottom surface of the dock or on a face of the dock. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having four strain gauges formed on a bottom surface of the dock or on a face of the dock in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharrad (2015/0293563) as applied to claim s above, and further in view of Thulke (2011/0135474) . Regarding Claim 5: Wharrad lacks a specific teaching of wherein the four strain gauges form a Wheatstone full-bridge circuit such that an output voltage is indicative of a deformation of the strain gauges corresponding to the tablet computer docking and undocking from the dock. Thulke teaches the four strain gauges form a Wheatstone full-bridge circuit such that an output voltage is indicative of a deformation of the strain gauges corresponding to the tablet computer docking and undocking from the dock (paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having the four strain gauges form a Wheatstone full-bridge circuit such that an output voltage is indicative of a deformation of the strain gauges corresponding to the tablet computer docking and undocking from the dock as disclosed by Thulke in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art. Regarding Claim 17: Wharrad lacks a specific teaching of wherein the four strain gauges form a Wheatstone full-bridge circuit such an output voltage is indicative of a deformation of the strain gauges corresponding to the tablet computer docking and undocking from the dock. Thulke teaches wherein the four strain gauges form a Wheatstone full-bridge circuit such an output voltage is indicative of a deformation of the strain gauges corresponding to the tablet computer docking and undocking from the dock (paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having the four strain gauges form a Wheatstone full-bridge circuit such an output voltage is indicative of a deformation of the strain gauges corresponding to the tablet computer docking and undocking from the dock as disclosed by Thulke in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharrad (2015/0293563) as applied to claim s above, and further in view of Belson (2022/0339488) . Regarding Claim 9: 9. The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more force sensors include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor formed within the tablet computer for detecting a change in orientation of the tablet computer. Belson teaches wherein the one or more force sensors include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor formed within the tablet computer for detecting a change in orientation of the tablet computer (paragraphs [0023] and [0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having the one or more force sensors include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor formed within the tablet computer for detecting a change in orientation of the tablet computer as disclosed by Belson in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wharrad (2015/0293563) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Smerzi (2017/0356813) . Regarding Claim 10: Wharrad lacks a specific teaching of wherein the one or more force sensors include a barometer formed within the tablet computer. Smerzi teaches wherein the one or more force sensors include a barometer formed within the tablet computer (paragraphs [0083]-[0085]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Wharrad by having wherein the one or more force sensors include a barometer formed within the tablet computer as disclosed by Smerzi in order to allow for a reliable sense of security with the sensors since using the configuration of a four sensor pattern as a Wheatstone full-bridge is a commonly known configuration in the art . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art not relied upon above and cited in the notice of references PTO-892 relate to the current application as there are different styles of removable and dockable tablet devices including sensors . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p. 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 at 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. /ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 2 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 3 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 4 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 5 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 6 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 7 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 8 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/864,176 Page 9 Art Unit: 2841
Prosecution Insights