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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao (20220061535) in view of Stump (10010179).
Regarding claim 1, Pao teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a foldable device (Fig. 1), comprising: a support unit (10, 20, 23, 31) including a pivot base (10), two support shafts (20) and a shaft member (20, 23, 31), said pivot base including a base seat (10), a through hole (16) and two support holes (16), each of which extends through said base seat in a first direction (Fig. 2), said support shafts respectively extending through said support holes and being pivotably connected with said base seat (par. 46, 48), said shaft member extending through said through hole and along a central axis (Fig. 3), said shaft member being pivotably connected with said base seat to be rotatable relative to said base seat about a rotating axis which is transverse to a direction of the central axis (Figs. 6-8), such that said shaft member is rotatable relative to said base seat between a ready position, where said shaft member extends parallel to the first direction (Fig. 3), and a swung position, where said shaft member is inclined relative to the first direction by an inclined angle (Fig. 8), wherein, when said shaft member is in the ready position, said support shafts extend parallel to said shaft member, and wherein, during rotation of said shaft member to the swung position, said shaft member actuates said support shafts to rotate and spread relative to said base seat and to be inclined and intersect one another (par. 47 & Fig. 6). Pao fail(s) to teach a biasing member. However, Stump teaches a biasing member (94) interposed between a base seat (22) and a shaft member (96) to have a torque which urges said shaft member to rotate toward the swung position (col. 5, lines 43-44 & 50-52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a biasing member, as taught by Stump, between the base seat & shaft member of Pao, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the effort required to unfold the device (as suggested by col. 5, lines 43-44 & 50-52 of Stump).
Regarding claim 2, Pao as modified teaches a biasing member (94 of Stump) in form of a coil spring (94 of Stump), and has a coil portion interposed between said shaft member (20, 23, 31 of Pao) and said base seat (10 of Pao), a first arm portion extending from an end of said coil portion and abutting against said base seat, and a second arm portion extending from an opposite end of said coil portion and abutting against said shaft member (as in Fig. 8 of Stump).
Regarding claim 3, Pao as modified teaches a biasing member (94 of Stump) disposed to have said first arm portion and said second arm portion closer to each other when said shaft member (20, 23, 31 of Pao) is in the ready position, and remoter from each other when said shaft member is in the swung position (implied by Fig. 8 of Stump).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao (20220061535) & Stump (10010179) in view of Metzger (6270156).
Regarding claim 6, Pao as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a base seat (10) having an inner seat wall which defines support holes (16) and a through hole (16) & comprises a first end wall (i.e., upper surface of 10) and a second end wall (i.e., lower surface of 10) which are respectively connected with two sides of an inner seat wall along the first direction and opposite to each other (Fig. 11), a rotating axis (15) extending along a second direction that is transverse to the first direction (Fig. 11); but fail(s) to teach inclined first & second inner wall sections.
PNG
media_image1.png
341
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Metzger teaches a hole (66) defined by an inner seat wall (A-C in Fig. 8 Annotated) having a first inner wall section (A) and a second inner wall section (B) which are opposite to each other along a third direction that is transverse to both the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 8), and at two sides of said through hole, respectively, and a first connecting wall section (one of C) which interconnects said first inner wall section and said second inner wall section and on which a shaft member (at 68) is pivotably disposed, each of said first inner wall section and said second inner wall section extending and being inclined relative to the first direction (Fig. 8), when a shaft member (72) is in the ready position, a first side of said shaft member facing said first inner wall section abuts against a first portion (86) of said first inner wall section (A) proximate to a first end wall (D), and is spaced apart from a second portion (84) of said first inner wall section proximate to a second end wall (E), and a second side of said shaft member facing said second inner wall section (B) abuts against a second portion (82) of said second inner wall section proximate to said second end wall, and is spaced apart from a first portion (80) of said second inner wall section proximate to said first end wall, and such that, when said shaft member is in the swung position, said first side of said shaft member (72) abuts against said second portion (84) of said first inner wall section (A) and is spaced apart from said first portion (86) of said first inner wall section, and said second side of said shaft member abuts against said first portion (80) of said second inner wall section (B) and is spaced apart from said second portion (82) of said second inner wall section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a hole, as taught by Metzger, for each of the support holes & through hole of Pao as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional support to the support shafts & shaft member in both the ready & swung positions. Hence, Pao as modified would teach a biasing member (94 of Stump) being connected between a first connecting wall section (C of Metzger) and a shaft member (20, 23, 31 of Pao).
Regarding claim 7, Pao as modified teaches a biasing member (94) in form of a coil spring (as in Fig. 8 of Stump), and has a coil portion interposed between said shaft member and said first connecting wall section (as in Fig. 8 of Stump), a first arm portion extending from an end of said coil portion and abutting (as in Fig. 8 of Stump) against said base seat (10 of Pao), and a second arm portion extending from an opposite end of said coil portion and abutting (as implied by Fig. 8 of Stump) against said shaft member (20, 23, 31 of Pao).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao (20220061535) & Stump (10010179) in view of Froment (FR3000519). Pao as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a support unit (10, 20, 23, 31 of Pao) comprising a shaft member (20, 23, 31 of Pao) & base seat (10 of Pao); but fail(s) to teach a locking member. However, Froment teaches locking mans (336-337, 435-437) comprising a locking member (435) movably disposed on a shaft member (122) and removably engaged with a base seat (332) such that, when said locking member is engaged with said base seat, said shaft member is positioned in the ready position to prevent rotation of said shaft member relative to said base seat, and such that, when said locking member is released from engagement with said base seat, said shaft member is rotatable relative to said base seat toward the swung position (p. 5, line 19 to p. 6, line 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add locking means, as taught by Froment, between the shaft member & base seat of Pao as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent accidental folding of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 & 8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637