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, 6, 8-9, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohishi et al. (US 20190294212; “Ohishi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ohishi discloses a tablet dock system (16) comprising: a dock housing (housing of the keyboard 18); a mating surface (upper surface of the keyboard 18 along which the holding plate 52 and stopper 48 are disposed, figs. 11-14) formed by the dock housing (figs. 11-21), wherein a tablet computer (14) is removably docked with the tablet dock system in contact with the mating surface (fig. 11-19); a force sensor (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor “, par. [0081]) disposed within the dock housing (par. [0081]), wherein the force sensor performs measurements indicative of in-progress undocking of the tablet computer from the dock (par. [0081]); and a magnet component (a pair of projecting members 42 or 42A on the left and right sides corresponding to where stoppers 48/48A are disposed in figs 2, 4 and corresponding magnetic member 60) disposed within the dock housing (fig. 14), wherein: the magnet component includes one or more magnets (54, 60); and the magnetic component retracts within the dock housing and away from the mating surface in response to the measurements indicative of undocking the tablet computer from the dock (when the tablet is in S1 states or in docked stated, the stopper 48 is extended out and as depicted in fig. 17 and the holding plate 52 lies close to the docking surface as depicted in fig. 10, and in all the other states like S2, S3, the holding plate 52 rotates inward or away from the docking surface to be attracted to the magnet 60 as depicted in fig. 14 during which the stopper 48 is retracted to lie inside the docking housing as depicted in fig. 11; par. [0054], figs 11-14).
Regarding claim 2, Ohishi discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an actuator (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor and the stopper 48 is moved to the projecting position T2 by an actuator”, par. [0081]), wherein the magnet component is retracted within the dock housing and away from the mating surface by the actuator within the dock housing and coupled to the magnet component (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor and the stopper 48 is moved to the projecting position T2 by an actuator if the tablet 14 is in a predetermined state”, par. [0081]; also see par. [0054], figs. 11-14).
Regarding claim 6, Ohishi discloses wherein the magnet component includes at least two magnets (a pair of magnets 54 provided in each of the projecting members 42 and corresponding magnet components 60).
Regarding claim 8, Ohishi disclose a tablet dock system comprising: a dock housing (housing of the keyboard 18); a mating surface (upper surface of the keyboard 18 along which the holding plate 52 and stopper 48 are disposed, figs. 11-14) formed by the dock housing (figs. 11-21), wherein a tablet computer (14) is removably docked with the tablet dock system in contact with the mating surface (figs 17-19); a force sensor (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor “, par. [0081]) disposed within the dock housing (par. [0081]), wherein the force sensor performs measurements indicative of in-progress undocking of the tablet computer from the dock (par. [0081]); and a pushrod mechanism (a pair of projecting members 42 or 42A on the left and right sides corresponding to where stoppers 48/48A are disposed in figs 2, 4 and corresponding magnetic member 60) disposed within the dock housing (figs. 19-20), wherein the pushrod mechanism advances within the dock housing and toward the mating surface in response to measurements indicative of undocking the tablet computer from the dock (when the tablet is in S1 states or in docked stated, the stopper 48 of the projecting member is extended out and as depicted in fig. 17 and the holding plate 52 lies close to the docking surface as depicted in fig. 10, and in all the other states like S2, S3, the holding plate 52 rotates inward or away from the docking surface to be attracted to the magnet 60 as depicted in fig. 14 during which the stopper 48 is retracted to lie inside the docking housing as depicted in fig. 11; par. [0054], figs 11-14).
Regarding claim 9, Ohishi disclose the system of claim 8, further comprising an actuator (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor and the stopper 48 is moved to the projecting position T2 by an actuator”, par. [0081]), wherein the pushrod mechanism is advanced within the dock housing and toward the mating surface by the actuator within the dock housing and coupled to the pushrod mechanism (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor and the stopper 48 is moved to the projecting position T2 by an actuator if the tablet 14 is in a predetermined state”, par. [0081]; also see par. [0054], figs. 11-19).
Regarding claim 12, Ohishi disclose wherein the pushrod mechanism is advanced from within the dock housing and toward the mating surface (when the tablet is in S1 states or in docked stated, the stopper 48 of the projecting member is extended out and as depicted in fig. 17 and the holding plate 52 lies close to the docking surface as depicted in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Ohishi discloses wherein the pushrod mechanism includes at least two protrusions (48/48A, figs 2, 4) that extend through the mating surface when the pushrod mechanism is advanced toward the mating surface (figs 15, 17-18).
Regarding claim 15, Ohishi discloses a tablet computer system comprising: a dock (a keyboard housing 18 that holds the tablet 14, figs. 11-14) having a dock housing (housing of the keyboard 18, figs 17-19); a tablet computer (14) which can be removably docked from a mating surface of the dock (figs 11-19), the tablet computer comprising an electronic display (display unit 21); one or more force sensors (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor “, par. [0081]) disposed within the dock housing (par. [0081]) formed on the dock for detection of a force or pressure distribution associated with undocking of the tablet computer from the dock (par. [0081]); and a magnet component (a pair of projecting members 42 or 42A on the left and right sides corresponding to where stoppers 48/48A are disposed in figs 2, 4 and corresponding magnetic member 60) disposed within the dock housing (fig. 14), wherein: the magnet component includes one or more magnets (54, 60); and the magnetic component retracts within the dock housing and away from the mating surface in response to measurements from the one or more force sensors indicative of undocking the tablet computer from the dock (when the tablet is in S1 states or in docked stated, the stopper 48 is extended out and as depicted in fig. 17 and the holding plate 52 lies close to the docking surface as depicted in fig. 10, and in all the other states like S2, S3, the holding plate 52 rotates inward or away from the docking surface to be attracted to the magnet 60 as depicted in fig. 14 during which the stopper 48 is retracted to lie inside the docking housing as depicted in fig. 11; par. [0054], figs 11-14).
Regarding claim 16, Ohishi discloses the system of claim 15, further comprising an actuator (“a structure in which the position of the tablet 14 with respect to the keyboard 18 is detected by a sensor and the stopper 48 is moved to the projecting position T2 by an actuator”, par. [0081]), wherein the magnet component is retracted within the dock housing and away from the mating surface by the actuator within the dock housing and coupled to the magnet component (when the tablet is in S1 states or in docked stated, the stopper 48 is extended out and as depicted in fig. 17 and the holding plate 52 lies close to the docking surface as depicted in fig. 10, par. [0054], figs 11-14).
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) 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohishi in view of Weldon et al. (US 20170017273”; “Weldon” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 2.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is a linear actuator.
Weldon teaches a computing system (fig. 5A) comprising: a tablet (“tablet component 106”, par. [0054]), a docking housing (108) comprising a magnet component (104); wherein the magnet component is retracted within the dock housing and away from a mating surface by an actuator (“As shown by arrow 508, the magnetic force between magnetic elements 102, 104 may be reduced by moving magnetic element 104 away from magnetic element 102 in a direction parallel and opposite to the magnetic force”, par. [0056]; wherein an actuator to is a linear actuator (“a linear actuator may forcefully separate magnetic element 104 away from magnetic element 102. By reducing the force between magnetic element 102 and magnetic element 104 using a linear actuator”, par. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the actuator being a linear actuator as taught by Weldon because such modification helps to linearly move the magnet component and help in reducing the magnetic force between magnet element and magnet or magnet element and thus a user easily detach the tablet from the dock.
Regarding claim 4, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 2.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is a rotational actuator.
Weldon teaches a computing system (fig. 7A) comprising: a component (“tablet 106N”, par. [0069]), a base (108R) comprising a magnet component (104) (fig. 7C); wherein the magnet component is retracted within the base and away from a mating surface by a rotational actuator (“ the mechanism could involve the use of a rotational actuator to rotate a shaft containing cams that effect displacements of magnetic elements 104 through the cam radial eccentricity”, par. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the actuator being a rotational actuator as taught by Weldon because such modification helps to move the magnet component away from the magnet and help in reducing the magnetic force between magnet element and magnet or another magnet element and thus a user easily detach the tablet from the dock.
Regarding claim 10, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 9.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is a linear actuator.
Weldon teaches a computing system (fig. 5A) comprising: a tablet (“tablet component 106”, par. [0054]), a docking housing (108) comprising a magnet component (104); wherein the magnet component is retracted within the dock housing and away from a mating surface by an actuator (“As shown by arrow 508, the magnetic force between magnetic elements 102, 104 may be reduced by moving magnetic element 104 away from magnetic element 102 in a direction parallel and opposite to the magnetic force”, par. [0056]; wherein an actuator to is a linear actuator (“a linear actuator may forcefully separate magnetic element 104 away from magnetic element 102. By reducing the force between magnetic element 102 and magnetic element 104 using a linear actuator”, par. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the actuator being a linear actuator as taught by Weldon because such modification helps to linearly move the magnet component and help in reducing the magnetic force between magnet element and magnet or magnet element and thus a user easily detach the tablet from the dock.
Regarding claim 11, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 9.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is a rotational actuator.
Weldon teaches a computing system (fig. 7A) comprising: a component (“tablet 106N”, par. [0069]), a base (108R) comprising a magnet component (104) (fig. 7C); wherein the magnet component is retracted within the base and away from a mating surface by a rotational actuator (“ the mechanism could involve the use of a rotational actuator to rotate a shaft containing cams that effect displacements of magnetic elements 104 through the cam radial eccentricity”, par. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the actuator being a rotational actuator as taught by Weldon because such modification helps to move the magnet component away from the magnet and help in reducing the magnetic force between magnet element and magnet or another magnet element and thus a user easily detach the tablet from the dock.
Regarding claim 17, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 16.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is a linear actuator.
Weldon teaches a computing system (fig. 5A) comprising: a tablet (“tablet component 106”, par. [0054]), a docking housing (108) comprising a magnet component (104); wherein the magnet component is retracted within the dock housing and away from a mating surface by an actuator (“As shown by arrow 508, the magnetic force between magnetic elements 102, 104 may be reduced by moving magnetic element 104 away from magnetic element 102 in a direction parallel and opposite to the magnetic force”, par. [0056]; wherein an actuator to is a linear actuator (“a linear actuator may forcefully separate magnetic element 104 away from magnetic element 102. By reducing the force between magnetic element 102 and magnetic element 104 using a linear actuator”, par. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the actuator being a linear actuator as taught by Weldon because such modification helps to linearly move the magnet component and help in reducing the magnetic force between magnet element and magnet or magnet element and thus a user easily detach the tablet from the dock.
Regarding claim 18, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 16.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is a rotational actuator.
Weldon teaches a computing system (fig. 7A) comprising: a component (“tablet 106N”, par. [0069]), a base (108R) comprising a magnet component (104) (fig. 7C); wherein the magnet component is retracted within the base and away from a mating surface by a rotational actuator (“ the mechanism could involve the use of a rotational actuator to rotate a shaft containing cams that effect displacements of magnetic elements 104 through the cam radial eccentricity”, par. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the actuator being a rotational actuator as taught by Weldon because such modification helps to move the magnet component away from the magnet and help in reducing the magnetic force between magnet element and magnet or another magnet element and thus a user easily detach the tablet from the dock.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohishi.
Regarding claim 5, Ohishi discloses wherein the magnet component is retracted within the dock housing and away from the mating surface (holding plate 52 includes a magnet element 54 that is retracted away from the mating surface in the housing 18 , fig. 14).
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose the magnet component retracted between 1 mm and 2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the magnet component retracted away from the mating surface in the rage of 1 mm to 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Ohishi discloses wherein the magnet component is retracted within the dock housing and away from the mating surface (holding plate 52 includes a magnet element 54 that is retracted away from the mating surface in the housing 18 , fig. 14).
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose the magnet component retracted between 1 mm and 2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to have the magnet component retracted away from the mating surface in the rage of 1 mm to 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohishi in view of Kimura et al. (US 20160328030”; “Kimura” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 1.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more processors that determine that the tablet computer is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from the force sensor.
Kimura teaches an information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors (301, 302) that determine that a display device (display 3 or wireless device 200, 300) is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from a force sensor (307, 308) (par. [0045], [0048], [0065], [0072], [0076] and claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to include one or more processors that determine that the tablet computer is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from the force sensor because such modification helps to determine whether the tablet computer is docked or undocked and modify the function of the tablet computer accordingly.
Regarding claim 14, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 8.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 8, further comprising one or more processors that determine that the tablet computer is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from the force sensor.
Kimura teaches an information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors (301, 302) that determine that a display device (display 3 or wireless device 200, 300) is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from a force sensor (307, 308) (par. [0045], [0048], [0065], [0072], [0076] and claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to include one or more processors that determine that the tablet computer is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from the force sensor because such modification helps to determine whether the tablet computer is docked or undocked and modify the function of the tablet computer accordingly.
Regarding claim 20, Ohishi discloses the tablet dock system as claimed in claim 15.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 15, further comprising one or more processors that determine that the tablet computer is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from the force sensor.
Kimura teaches an information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors (301, 302) that determine that a display device (display 3 or wireless device 200, 300) is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from a force sensor (307, 308) (par. [0045], [0048], [0065], [0072], [0076] and claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohishi to include one or more processors that determine that the tablet computer is undocking from the dock based on one or more received measurements from the force sensor because such modification helps to determine whether the tablet computer is docked or undocked and modify the function of the tablet computer accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed in the form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1236. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-6:30 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841