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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakayama et al. (US 20180214092).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama teaches a placement mechanism having a body 51, wherein the body has a mounting surface, the mounting surface is configured to place a flat panel P, the placement mechanism further comprises a limiting assembly 55a-e disposed on the mounting surface, and the limiting assembly comprises a first limiting block 55a-e, a second limiting block 55a-e, and a locking portion;
the quantity of the first limiting block is at least two 55a-e, the body has a first end and a second end relative to each other, and at least two first limiting blocks are distributed at the first end;
the second limiting block is located at the second end, and the first limiting block and the second limiting block are configured to perform limiting along at least one of a length direction, a width direction, or a height direction of the flat panel (figure 3); and
the locking portion 56 is located at the second end, the locking portion has a locking member, and the locking member is configured to lock and unlock the flat panel, respectively (figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama teaches the locking portion further comprises an adjusting member configured to adjust a friction force between the locking member and the body (figure 3, P1 P2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama teaches the placement mechanism further comprises a drag reducing portion disposed on the mounting surface and the drag reducing portion has a smooth surface (rotatable surface, figures 7A-C).
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama teaches one of the at least two first limiting blocks comprises a flange, and the flange extends over the mounting surface along a height direction of the body (figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama teaches the locking member has a locking position and an unlocking position, and the locking position and the unlocking position are configured to lock and unlock the flat panel along the height direction, respectively (figures 7A-C).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Koyanagi (US 20120134477).
Regarding claim 1, Koyanagi teaches a placement mechanism having a body, wherein the body has a mounting surface, the mounting surface is configured to place a flat panel 1, the placement mechanism further comprises a limiting assembly 7 8 disposed on the mounting surface, and the limiting assembly comprises a first limiting block 8, a second limiting block 7, and a locking portion 10;
the quantity of the first limiting block is at least two 8, the body has a first end and a second end relative to each other, and at least two first limiting blocks are distributed at the first end;
the second limiting block 7 is located at the second end, and the first limiting block and the second limiting block are configured to perform limiting along at least one of a length direction, a width direction, or a height direction of the flat panel; and
the locking portion 10 is located at the second end, the locking portion has a locking member, and the locking member is configured to lock and unlock the flat panel, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Koyanagi teaches the locking portion further comprises an adjusting member configured to adjust a friction force between the locking member and the body (inhibited from being released, para 36).
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(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Okamoto et al. (US 5101423).
Regarding claim 4, Koyanagi fails to teach the limiting assembly further comprises an elastic member, the elastic member is disposed on either or both of the first limiting block and the second limiting block, and the elastic member is configured to exert a force on the flat panel along the length direction or the width direction.
Okamoto teaches limiting assembly further comprises an elastic member, the elastic member is disposed on either or both of the first limiting block and the second limiting block, and the elastic member is configured to exert a force on the flat panel along the length direction or the width direction (col 2 line 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the limiting assembly of Koyanagi with the elastic member as taught by Okamoto, since it would provide better panel protection.
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto teaches the quantity of the elastic member is at least two, at least two elastic members are distributed on the first limiting block and the second limiting block, respectively, and the at least two elastic members are configured to exert elastic forces on the flat panel along the length direction or the width direction (figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Koyanagi fails to teach the first limiting block comprises a limiting surface, the limiting surface is configured to align limiting with the length direction or the width direction of the flat panel, the limiting surface has a guiding region, and an angle is defined between the guiding region and a mounting direction of the flat panel.
Okamoto teaches the first limiting block comprises a limiting surface, the limiting surface is configured to align limiting with the length direction or the width direction of the flat panel, the limiting surface has a guiding region, and an angle is defined between the guiding region and a mounting direction of the flat panel (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the limiting assembly of Koyanagi with the guiding region as taught by Okamoto, since it would provide better panel protection/alignment.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Fisher et al. (US 3656579).
Regarding claim 7, Koyanagi fails to teach the placement mechanism further comprises a drag reducing portion disposed on the mounting surface and the drag reducing portion has a smooth surface.
Fisher teaches placement mechanism further comprises a drag reducing portion 33 32 disposed on the mounting surface and the drag reducing portion has a smooth surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the surface of Koyanagi with the drag reducing portion as taught by Fisher, since it would provide better panel positioning.
Regarding claim 8, Fisher teaches the drag reducing portion is in a strip shape, the quantity of the drag reducing portion is at least two, and at least two drag reducing portions extend along a mounting direction of the flat panel (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Koyanagi teaches the locking member has a locking position and an unlocking position, and the locking position and the unlocking position are configured to lock and unlock the flat panel along the height direction, respectively (figure 10).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Tajima et al. (US 20130083898).
Regarding claim 11, Koyanagi teaches a flat panel box, comprising the placement mechanism of claim 1, wherein the flat panel box further comprises a bottom plate 9 and a charging assembly 20; the placement mechanism is mounted on the bottom plate; and the charging assembly comprises a charging head 201, and a mounting base 600, the charging head is configured to charge the flat panel, the mounting base is fixed on the bottom plate, and the charging head is floating connected to the mounting base.
However Koyanagi fails to teach a second spring.
Tajima teaches a spring for connection (para 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the charging assembly of Koyanagi with the spring connection as taught by Tajima, since it would provide better connection.
Regarding claim 12, Koyanagi fails to teach the bottom plate comprises a guiding rail, the placement mechanism comprises a guiding portion that cooperates with the guiding rail, and a direction of insertion of the charging head is the same as a direction of extension of the guiding rail.
Tajima teaches the bottom plate comprises a guiding rail, the placement mechanism comprises a guiding portion that cooperates with the guiding rail, and a direction of insertion of the charging head is the same as a direction of extension of the guiding rail (figure 6a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the charging assembly of Koyanagi with the spring connection as taught by Tajima, since it would provide better connection.
Regarding claim 13, Koyanagi teaches the locking portion further comprises an adjusting member configured to adjust a friction force between the locking member and the body (figure 6).
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Tajima further in view of Bostley.
Regarding claim 14, Koyanagi fails to teach the body comprises a locking base, the lock member is rotatably connected to the locking base, the locking portion further comprises a first spring, the adjusting member is connected to the locking member, and the first spring is disposed between the adjusting member and the locking base.
Bostley teaches the body comprises a locking base, the lock member is rotatably connected to the locking base, the locking portion further comprises a first spring, the adjusting member is connected to the locking member, and the first spring is disposed between the adjusting member and the locking base (figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the locking member of Koyanagi with the locking member as taught by Bostley, since it would provide better locking.
Regarding claim 20, Bostley teaches one of the at least two first limiting blocks comprises a flange, and the flange extends over the mounting surface along a height direction of the body (figure 11).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Tajima further in view of Okamoto.
Regarding claim 15, Koyanagi fails to teach the limiting assembly further comprises an elastic member, the elastic member is disposed on either or both of the first limiting block and the second limiting block, and the elastic member is configured to exert a force on the flat panel along the length direction or the width direction.
Okamoto teaches the limiting assembly further comprises an elastic member, the elastic member is disposed on either or both of the first limiting block and the second limiting block, and the elastic member is configured to exert a force on the flat panel along the length direction or the width direction (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the limiting assembly of Koyanagi with the guiding region as taught by Okamoto, since it would provide better panel protection/alignment.
Regarding claim 16, Okamoto teaches the quantity of the elastic member is at least two, at least two elastic members are distributed on the first limiting block and the second limiting block, respectively, and at least two elastic members are configured to exert elastic forces on the flat panel along the length direction or the width direction (figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Koyanagi fails to teach the first limiting block comprises a limiting surface, the limiting surface is configured to align limiting with the length direction or a width direction of the flat panel, the limiting surface has a guiding region, and an angle is defined between the guiding region and a mounting direction of the flat panel.
Okamoto teaches the first limiting block comprises a limiting surface, the limiting surface is configured to align limiting with the length direction or the width direction of the flat panel, the limiting surface has a guiding region, and an angle is defined between the guiding region and a mounting direction of the flat panel (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the limiting assembly of Koyanagi with the guiding region as taught by Okamoto, since it would provide better panel protection/alignment.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi in view of Tajima further in view of Fisher.
Regarding claim 18, Koyanagi fails to teach the placement mechanism further comprises a drag reducing portion disposed on the mounting surface and the drag reducing portion has a smooth surface.
Fisher teaches placement mechanism further comprises a drag reducing portion 33 32 disposed on the mounting surface and the drag reducing portion has a smooth surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the surface of Koyanagi with the drag reducing portion as taught by Fisher, since it would provide better panel positioning.
Regarding claim 19, Fisher teaches the drag reducing portion is in a strip shape, the quantity of the drag reducing portion is at least two, and at least two drag reducing portions extend along a mounting direction of the flat panel (figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bostley et al. (US 20160374759) in view of Koyanagi (US 20120134477).
Regarding claim 1, Bostley teaches a placement mechanism having a body, wherein the body has a mounting surface, the mounting surface is configured to place a flat panel, the placement mechanism further comprises and a locking portion; the locking portion 6 is located at the second end, the locking portion has a locking member, and the locking member is configured to lock and unlock the flat panel 20, respectively.
However Bostley fails to teach a limiting assembly disposed on the mounting surface, and the limiting assembly comprises a first limiting block, a second limiting block the quantity of the first limiting block is at least two, the body has a first end and a second end relative to each other, and at least two first limiting blocks are distributed at the first end; the second limiting block is located at the second end, and the first limiting block and the second limiting block are configured to perform limiting along at least one of a length direction, a width direction, or a height direction of the flat panel.
Koyanagi teaches a limiting assembly disposed on the mounting surface, and the limiting assembly comprises a first limiting block 7, a second limiting block 8 the quantity of the first limiting block is at least two, the body has a first end and a second end relative to each other, and at least two first limiting blocks are distributed at the first end; the second limiting block is located at the second end, and the first limiting block and the second limiting block are configured to perform limiting along at least one of a length direction, a width direction, or a height direction of the flat panel (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the panel protector of Bostley with the limiting assembly as taught by Koyanagi, since it would better/secure panel positioning.
Regarding claim 2, Bostley as modified teaches the locking portion further comprises an adjusting member 50 or 60 configured to adjust a friction force between the locking member and the body (figure 11).
Regarding claim 3, Bostley teaches the body comprises a locking base, the lock member is rotatably 22 connected to the locking base, the locking portion further comprises a first spring 27, the adjusting member 50 or 60 is connected to the locking member, and the first spring is disposed between the adjusting member and the locking base (figure 11).
Regarding claim 9, Bostley teaches one of the at least two first limiting blocks comprises a flange, and the flange extends over the mounting surface along a height direction of the body (figure 11).
Regarding claim 10, Bostley teaches the locking member has a locking position and an unlocking position, and the locking position and the unlocking position are configured to lock and unlock the flat panel along the height direction, respectively (figure 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights