This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/938501.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species requirement in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of the species does not impose a serious burden, since claim 20 depends from claim 17 which has been found to include allowable subject matter, the examiner has determined that examination of claim 20 is not burdensome and therefore claim 20 has been rejoined and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the base" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 6 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Chaoping et al. CN108799709, known as Chaoping1.
Chaoping1 disclose:
1. A holding mechanism, comprising: a bottom plate (11); a clamp (355, 315) movably disposed over the bottom plate (11); a slider (31,35) connected to the clamp (355,315) and used to drive the clamp to move; and a knob (612) rotatably disposed over the bottom plate (11), wherein the knob (612) abuts the slider (355,315), wherein the slider (355,315) is pushed to move the clamp (355,315) towards the base (200) by the knob (612).
2. The holding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a spring (80) connected to the clamp (355,315) and used to exert a force on the clamp so that the clamp moves toward a cover plate (70).
5. The holding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a cam (50), wherein the knob (612) is pivotally connected to the bottom plate (152) via the cam.
6. The holding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an operating portion (60) extending from the knob and in a direction away from the bottom plate (11).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 15 is/are rejected,as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Chaoping et al. CN108799709, known as Chaoping2.
Chaoping 2 discloses:
1. A holding mechanism, comprising: a bottom plate (11); a clamp (31,35) movably disposed over the bottom plate (11); a slider (50) connected to the clamp (31,35) and used to drive the clamp to move; and a knob (612) rotatably disposed over the bottom plate (11), wherein the knob (612) abuts the slider (50), wherein the slider (50) is pushed to move the clamp (31,35) towards the base (200) by the knob (612).
2. The holding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a spring (80) connected to the clamp (31/35) and used to exert a force on the clamp so that the clamp moves toward a cover plate (70).
4. (Original) The holding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a cover plate (70), wherein the cover plate is disposed opposite the bottom plate (11), the cover plate (70) comprises a protrusion (see protrusion on 70 that are received in 3127 that contact 17 of bottom plate), the clamp comprises a groove (3127), and the protrusion of the cover plate is used to push against a sidewall of the groove of the clamp, so that the clamp is moved toward the bottom plate.
6. The holding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an operating portion (60) extending from the knob and in a direction away from the bottom plate (11).
15. A bracket assembly, for abutting against a display device (screen of 200), comprising: a base (back of 200); and a holding mechanism movably connected to the base and used to abut against the display device, wherein the holding mechanism comprises: a bottom plate (11); a clamp (30, 31, 35) movably disposed over the bottom plate (11); a slider (connected to the clamp and used to drive the clamp to move; and a knob (612) rotatably disposed over the bottom plate (11), wherein the knob (612) is abutted against the slider (50) , wherein the base (back of 200 slide within bottom plate and clamp) is slidably disposed between the bottom plate and the clamp of the holding mechanism, and the slider (50) is pushed to move the clamp (30, 31, 35) toward the base through the knob, so that the bottom plate and the clamp contact opposite surfaces of the base (back of 200) respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaoping CN108799709, known as Chaoping in view of Galant 2015/0305518.
Chaoping discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the buffer member disposed over a surface of the clamp.
Galant teaches that it is known to have
(Claim 3) The holding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a buffer member (162) disposed over a surface of the clamp (140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Chaoping to have a buffer member disposed over a surface of the clamp as taught by Galant for the purpose of providing an anti-slip coating to prevent damage to the supported object.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in regards to claim 7, the closest prior art Chaoping does not disclose a bracket assembly, for carrying an electronic component, comprising: a base; and a holding mechanism, movably connected to the base and used to carry the electronic component, wherein the holding mechanism comprises: a knob rotatably disposed on the bottom plate and abutting against the slider, wherein the base is slidably disposed between the bottom plate of the holding mechanism and the clamp, and the slider is pushed to move the clamp toward the base by the knob, so that the bottom plate and the clamp contact opposite surfaces of the base respectively and including all of the other limitations included in the claim.
Claims 16-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional holding mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights