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 # 18909161, entitled: VERTICAL STAND, filed on 10/08/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,085 to Chen (as seen in the Table below). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose the same structural limitations and functions, as claimed in the instant Application.
Conflicting claims
18/909,161
U.S. 12,259,085
1, 12-13, 15
1
2,16
2
3,17
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7,19
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
14
1,10,11
20
18
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) 1-7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agevik et al. (U.S. Pat. 7422379).
Regarding claim 1, Agevik discloses a stand 20 for holding electronic devices 21, the stand 20 comprising: a first side wall 34a having a top and a bottom (as seen in Fig. 3 below); a second side wall 34b having a top and bottom (as seen in Fig. 3 below); and a hinged base 31 having a first leaf 31a and a second leaf 31b pivotally coupled to the first leaf 31a, the first leaf 31a coupled to the first side wall 34a and the second leaf 31b coupled to the second side wall 34b to define a receiving area between the first and second side walls 34a,34b, where, when the receiving area is empty, the stand 20 is biased in an open position where the tops of the first and second walls 34a,34b are a first distance from one another (as shown in Fig. 3), and when an electronic device is placed in the receiving area, the stand is moved to a closed position where the tops of the first and second walls 34a,34b are a second distance from one another, the second distance being less than the first distance (as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Agevik discloses the stand 20, where in the closed position (Fig. 2), the hinged base 31 moves downward toward a substrate. The Examiner notes that as the stand 20 transitions from the open position in Fig. 3 to the closed position in Fig. 2, the base 31 moves downward.
Regarding claim 3, Agevik discloses the stand 20, where in the closed position (Fig. 2), the first and second leaves 31a,31b pivot relative to one another causing the tops of the first and second side walls 34a,34b to rotate inward to contact the electronic device 21 (as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Agevik discloses the stand 20, where the first leaf 31a has a first plurality of knuckles (as seen in Fig. 3 below) and the second leaf 31b has a second plurality of knuckles (as seen in Fig. 3 below) configured to interlock and align with the first plurality of knuckles.
Regarding claim 5, Agevik discloses the stand 20, where the first and second plurality of knuckles each include a passage extending therethrough that align with one another when interlocked to form an attachment passage (see interlocking of knuckles in Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 6, Agevik discloses the stand 20, where the first leaf 31a and the second leaf 31b are coupled by a rod 32 disposed in the attachment passage (as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Agevik discloses the stand 20, where the hinged base 31 additionally includes a resilient member biasing the stand 20 in the open position (shown in Fig. 3) when the receiving area is empty (see discussion in col. 6, lines 24-26, regarding “spring”).
Regarding claim 10, Agevik discloses the stand 20, further comprising a bumper disposed on the top of the first side wall 34a and a bumper disposed on the top of the second side wall 34b. The Examiner notes that Agevik discloses the use of rubber padding in col. 5, lines 15-18.
Regarding claim 12, Agevik discloses the stand 20, further comprising a support pad disposed on a top surface of the first leaf 31a and a support pad disposed on a top surface of the second leaf 31b. Again, the Examiner notes that Agevik discloses the use of rubber padding in col. 5, lines 15-18.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agevik in view of Wallis (U.S. Pat. 7777110).
Regarding claim 8, Agevik teaches the stand above, but fails to teach rotation stops on the stand 20. Wallis teaches a stand 10 having leaves 22,24 and a hinge 26 that pivotally connects the leaves 22,24 along the axis 50. Wallis further teaches, where the leaves 22,24 have at least one rotation stop 54 projecting outwardly from the plurality of knuckles 40,44 (as seen in Fig. 8), and where when the stand 10 is in the open position, the at least one rotation stop 54 of the first leaf 22 contacts the bottom surface of the second leaf 24 and the at least one rotation stop 54 of the second leaf 24 contacts the bottom surface of the first leaf 22 to prevent the hinged base from opening past a predetermined angle.
Regarding claim 20, Agevik teaches the stand above, comprising: a first side wall 34a; a second side wall 34b; and a hinged base 31 comprising: at least one pin 32; a first leaf 31a having a plurality of first knuckles (as seen in Fig. 3) configured to receive the at least one pin 32 a; a second leaf 31b having a plurality of second knuckles (as shown in Fig. 3) configured to receive the at least one pin 32 and interlock with the first knuckles; and a resilient member (as discussed in col.6, lines 24-26); where the at least one pin 32 is extends through passages in the first knuckles, the second knuckles, and the resilient member to pivotally couple the first and second leaves 31a,31b together. However, Agevik fails to teach rotation stops on the stand 20. Wallis teaches a stand 10 having leaves 22,24 and a hinge 26 that pivotally connects the leaves 22,24 along the axis 50. Wallis further teaches, where the leaves 22,24 have at least one rotation stop 54 projecting outwardly from the plurality of knuckles 40,44 (as seen in Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinges of Agevik to have the rotation stops of Wallis, in order to prevent pivoting movement of the first and second portions beyond a predetermined orientation, as taught to be desirable by Wallis (see discussion in col. 4, lines 59-61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Agevik and Wallis above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). U.S. Pats. 11672335 to Zavala et al., 20200278075 to Hatfield et al., 20100150543 to Fong teach supporting stands for electronic devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 17-Dec-25
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632