CTNF 18/973,713 CTNF 84729 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 have been considered for examination. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wheel housings” lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears Claim 12 was intended to be dependent upon Claim 9 where the wheel housings were first claimed. Claim 12 will be examined accordingly . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. Claim 1, 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,368 (368 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, in regard to Claim 1 in the 368 Patent, therein recites a display device comprising a head comprising a display panel, a base spaced from the head, and a pole extending from the base toward the head and connected with the head and the base, wherein the base comprises a port receiving an insertion portion of the pole and a weight disposed in the base. The instant Claim 1 similarly recites a display device comprising a head comprising a display panel, a pole supporting the head, and a base coupled with the pole. Although the instant claims further recites a base comprising a first weight and a plurality of second weights, providing plural weights in the base would have been an obvious variation of the weighted base of the patented claim to increase, distribute or adjust ballast within the base while maintaining support of the pole and head. See also MPEP §2144.04 (VI). Claims 16 and 19 are rejected on similar grounds. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,982 (982 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, in the instant Claim 1, the 982 Patent claims a display device comprising a display panel, a pole, and a base, the base comprising a lower body, a first plate configured to provide a weight to the base, and a second plate coupled with the first plate. Instant Claim 1 differs only in reciting “a plurality of second weights on the first weight.” Providing a second weight as a plurality is a mere duplication of parts and an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI). Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,243 (243 Patent). Claims 1-20 of the 243 Patent claim substantially similar limitations as noted above in the 982 Patent and the instant application (i.e. same base structure comprising a first weighted plate and a second weighted plate) and therefore are rejected under similar grounds as the 982 Patent above. Claims 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,030 (030 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, the 030 Patent claims a display device comprising a head, a pole, and a base comprising an upper case having a port which the pole is inserted, a lower case and a weight disposed between the cases. Instant Claim 16 only differs in dividing the weight into a weight plate and a plurality of weight blocks on the weight plate disposed along a perimeter of the weight plate. To make separable and to duplicate that which is otherwise disclosed has been held to be an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI). Claims 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,031 (031 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 16-18 are rejected in light of the 031 Patent on similar grounds as stated above in the rejection in light of the 030 Patent. In addition Claims 17 and 18 in the instant application recite wheel housings and coupling features that are claimed in the 031 Patent. Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,661 (661 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The 661 Patent claims a display device comprising a display panel, a pole, and a base comprising a first plate configured to provide a weight to the base, a second plate, a battery, a battery control board and a plurality of wheel assemblies, with the battery and the control board both housed in the base. Instant Claim 19 differs only in reciting a plurality of second weights rather than a single second plate, the battery received in an opening of the first weight, and the second weights disposed around the battery and the circuit board. These differences only amount to a mere duplication and relocation of parts and thus would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI). Claim 20 also likewise claims connector and cable features similarly as claimed in the 661 Patent. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinuki et al. (US Publication 2008/0237412) in view of Christ et al. (US Publication 2017/0215982) . In re Claim 1, Chinuki discloses a display device comprising: a head 20 including a display panel 30; a pole 12 supporting the head; and a base 2 coupled with the pole and supporting the pole, wherein the base comprises: a first weight 10 on the base; and a plurality of second weights 10 on the first weight on the base (paragraph 0049 discloses changing or adding more weights as needed). Chinuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the weights are located “in” the base. However, providing weights inside a base was not new in the art before applicant’s effective filing date. For example, Christ discloses a first weight 101 and a second weight 102 on the first weight, wherein the weights are in a base 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of support stands to have provided stackable weights within a base as disclosed in Christ with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Chinuki to protect the weights from outside shock and vibration and inadvertently becoming detached from the base (and then causing the base to tip over or otherwise be unable to support the pole, head and display). In re Claim 2, Chinuki as modified by Christ discloses the limitations as noted above, Christ further disclosing wherein the base further comprises: an upper case 2 including a port into which the pole 4 is inserted; and a lower case 20 coupled with the upper case, and wherein a first weight 201 is disposed between the upper case 2 and the lower case 20 and a plurality of second weights 101, 102 is disposed between the upper case 2 and the first weight 201 (See Figure 2). In re Claim 15, Christ also discloses wherein the pole 4 further comprises an insertion portion (See Figure 2) forming a lower end part of the pole and inserted into the port of the upper case 2, and wherein at least one of the plurality of second weights 101, 102 surrounds the insertion portion of the pole (Figure 3) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinuki et al. (US Publication 2008/0237412), Christ et al. (US Publication 2017/0215982) and further in view of Metelski (US Patent 6,305,659) . In re Claim 16, Chinuki discloses a display device comprising: a head 20 including a display panel 30; a pole 12 supporting the head; and a base 2 coupled with the pole and supporting the pole, a weight plate 10 on the base; and a plurality of weight blocks on the weight plate (paragraph 0049 discloses changing or adding more weights as needed). Chinuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the base comprises: an upper body case including a port into which the pole is inserted; a lower body case coupled with the upper body case. However, providing such was not new before the effective filing date. For example, Christ discloses an upper body case 2 including a port (Figures 2 and 3) into which a pole 4 is inserted and a lower body case 20 coupled with the upper body case. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of support stands to have provided an upper and lower body case as disclosed in Christ with that apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Chinuki to allow for other components (such as weights 101, 102, 201) to be disposed inside the base. Christ also discloses a weight plate 201 on the lower body case 20 between the upper body case 2 and the lower body case 20; and a plurality of weight blocks 101, 102 on the weight plate 201 between the upper body case 2 and the weight plate 201 (Figure 2). Chinuki also does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of weight blocks is disposed along a perimeter of the weight plate. However, providing a plurality of weigh blocks along a perimeter of a plate was known in the art of support stands before the effective filing date. For example, Metelski discloses a plurality of weight blocks 9 along a perimeter of a plate 10. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of support stands to have provided a plurality of weight blocks along a perimeter of a weight plate, as disclosed in Metelski, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Chinuki to distribute the weight of the overall apparatus and display to improve ergonomics and adjust the center of gravity. In re Claim 18, Christ discloses wherein the weight plate 201 is coupled with the lower body case 20 and the plurality of weight blocks 101, 102 is coupled with the weight plate 201. See Christ, Figure 4 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-14, 17 and 19-20 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. The specific limitations of “wherein the first weight includes an opening penetrates the first weight in a direction from the lower case toward the upper case, and wherein the base further comprises: a battery in the opening of the first weight; and a PCB on the first weight next to the battery” in Claim 3, and similarly in Claim 19, are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The specific limitations of "wherein the base further comprises: a plurality of wheel housings recessed from a bottom side of the lower case toward an inside of the base; and a plurality of wheel assemblies at the plurality of wheel housings, each of the plurality of wheel assemblies corresponding to each of the plurality of wheel housings, and wherein the plurality of second weights covers the plurality of wheel housings” in Claim 9, and similarly in Claim 17, are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion. The specific limitations of "wherein the pole has a cylindrical shape and includes a plurality of ribs formed at an inside of the pole and extended along a lengthwise direction of the pole, wherein the plurality of ribs is spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the pole, and wherein each of fastening members is inserted into a bottom surface of the lower case and the first weight and fixed to each of the plurality of ribs of the pole” in Claim 13 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion. For example, Chinuki et al. (US Publication 2008/0237412) discloses a display device comprising: a head 20 including a display panel 30; a pole 12 supporting the head; and a base 2 coupled with the pole and supporting the pole, wherein the base comprises: a first weight 10 on the base; and a plurality of second weights 10 on the first weight on the base (paragraph 0049 discloses changing or adding more weights as needed). Christ et al. (US Publication 2017/0215982) discloses a first weight 101 and a second weight 102 on the first weight, wherein the weights are in a base 2. Christ further discloses wherein the base further comprises: an upper case 2 including a port into which the pole 4 is inserted; and a lower case 20 coupled with the upper case, and wherein a first weight 201 is disposed between the upper case 2 and the lower case 20 and a plurality of second weights 101, 102 is disposed between the upper case 2 and the first weight 201 (See Figure 2). However, Chinuki as modified by Christ fail to disclose the specific limitations of Claims 3, 9, 13, 17 and 19 as noted above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm. 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 L 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. /ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 2 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 3 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 4 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 5 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 6 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 7 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 8 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 9 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 10 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/973,713 Page 11 Art Unit: 2841
Prosecution Insights