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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 7 and 8 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 7 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The examiner suggests amending “one end and the other end” to “a first end and a second end” (or similar) to establish proper antecedent basis, and making a corresponding amendment to claim 8. For purposes of applying prior art, claims 7-8 have been interpreted as best understood in view of the specification and drawing.
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) 1-2 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100006715 A1 Wills et. al (Wills) in view of WO 2016195139 A1 Konova Korea Co., LTD. (Konova).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
595
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
613
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
241
517
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wills discloses a display device (Annotated Wills Fig. A above) comprising: a head (Annotated Wills Fig. A above) including a display panel (Annotated Wills Fig. A above); and a stand (Annotated Wills Fig. A above) including a base (Annotated Wills Fig. A above) and supporting the head (Annotated Wills Fig. A above), wherein the base comprises: a wheel (Annotated Wills Fig. B above) mounted on a lower surface (Annotated Wills Fig. A above) of the base (Annotated Wills Fig. A above) and protruding from the lower surface (Annotated Wills Fig. A above); and a foot (Annotated Wills Fig. B above) spaced apart from the wheel (Annotated Wills Fig. B above) and coupled to the base (Annotated Wills Fig. B above).
Wills fails to disclose that said foot and said wheel are coupled to said base so as to be vertically movable, wherein a protruding length of the foot protruding from the lower surface of the base is variable. However, Konova teaches a protruding length (Annotated Konova Fig. A above) of the foot (Annotated Konova Fig. A above) protruding from the lower surface of the base (Annotated Konova Fig. A above) is variable (See Konova, English translation, page 9 lns. 301-310).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Wills by coupling the foot and wheel to the base so as to be vertically movable, with a variable protruding length as taught by Konova, in order to allow a use to selectively control contact and release of the base with the ground. Such a modification would have amounted nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, namely, a base capable of adjustable ground engagement. Such a modification would not have produced any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to level the display device on uneven surfaces and to selectively lock or release the base for stability during use.
Regarding claim 2, Wills discloses said foot (Annotated Wills Fig. B above) and said wheel (Annotated Wills Fig. B above).
Wills fails to disclose the protruding length of said foot is smaller or greater than a protruding length of said wheel. However, Konova teaches the protruding length (Annotated Konova Fig. A above) of said foot is smaller or greater than a protruding length (Annotated Konova Fig. A above) of said wheel (See See Konova, English translation, page 9 lns. 301-310).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Wills, as modified by Konova, such that the protruding length of the foot is smaller or greater than the protruding length of the wheel, as taught by Konova, in order to allow a user to selectively adjust the degree of ground contact and release between the foot and the wheel. Such a modification would not have produced any unexpected results. Moreover, doings so would enable a user to control the relative height of the foot and wheel to facilitate rolling movement when the foot is retracted and to stabilize the display device when the foot is extended.
Regarding claim 14, Wills discloses the base (See Annotated Wills Fig. A).
Wils fails to disclose said base further comprises a pad coupled to a lower surface of the foot. However, Konova teaches said base further comprises a pad (Annotated Konova Fig. A above) coupled to a lower surface (Annotated Konova Fig. A above) of the foot (Annotated Konova Fig. A above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Wills, as modified by Konova, by incorporating a pad coupled to a lower surface of the foot, as taught by Konova, in order to increase friction between the foot and the ground when the foot is in contact therewith. Such a modification would not have produced any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would enhance the stability of the display device and reduce slippage of the base when the foot is extended into contact with the ground.
Regarding claim 15, Wills discloses that the stand (Annotated Wills Fig. C above) further comprises: a pole (Annotated Wills Fig. C above) extending from the base (Annotated Wills Fig. A above) and spaced apart from the head (Annotated Wills Fig. C above); and an arm (Annotated Wills Fig. C above) extending in a direction (Annotated Wills Fig. C above) intersecting the head (Annotated Wills Fig. C above) and the pole (Annotated Wills Fig. C above), and connecting the head (Annotated Wills Fig. C above) and the pole (Annotated Wills Fig. C above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 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.
Reasons For Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, a base further comprising a guide coupled to the base so as so as to be movable in a circumferential direction of the base, wherein the foot is coupled to the guide so as to be vertically movable, as recited in claim 3.
While Konova teaches a foot that is vertically moveable relative to a base, neither Wills nor Konova, whether considered alone or in combination, discloses or suggests an intermediate guide structure that is itself movable in a circumferential direction of the base and to which the vertically movable foot is couple. The remaining cited references likewise fail to remedy this deficiency.
Claims 4-13 depend from claim 3, either directly or indirectly, and are allowable for at least the same reasons, as well as for the further limitations recited therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 7896299 B2, 5110076, US 2016/0353594 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASA F SOLOMON whose telephone number is +1 571-272-8379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9am-5pm EST.
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 +1 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of the 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.
/ASA FRANKLIN SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights