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 .
Specification
The use of the terms “Apple iPad, Kindle Fire, Motorola Xoom, Samsung Galaxy”, which trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 12-13, “with two support stoppers” should be “with the two support stoppers”.
In claim 3, lines 2-3, “wherein two rotating member wings” should be “wherein the two rotating member wings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claims 1,12 and 19, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claims 8,14 and 18, the phrases “preferably comprising”, “preferably by means of”, and “possibly self-lubricating” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear if the limitations following the phrases are meant to be required by the claim, or merely recite elements that may not be required by the claim.
In claim 11, the portion of the claim reading “are polygonal, in particular square, or square with rounded edges” is unclear. It is unclear if the recited elements in claim 11 must merely be polygonal, or if they are required to be square, or square with rounded edges.
In claim 15 it is unclear what is meant by “suitable fastening means” as no criteria for ascertaining whether a fastening means is suitable or not has been provided. For the purposes of examination “suitable fastening means” was interpreted as any fastening means that could mount the holder frame to the holder mount, as this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention.
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.
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) 1-5,7-11,16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harita et al.(US20160058190) in view of Choi et al.(US11582877).
[claim 1] Harita teaches a mounting system for rotatably mounting a tablet or the like(12) to a supporting element(mounting surface S) comprising: a holder unit(11) for holding a tablet or the like, the holder unit having a holder backplate(53); and a rotation unit(3) comprising a rotating member(51,52) and a rotating member support(21), the rotating member support being mountable to the supporting element such that the rotating member support is stationary with respect to the supporting element in the mounted state thereof(fig 5), the rotating member support having a support seat(g in figure 5) for accommodating the rotating member in a rotatable manner between the supporting element and the support seat(fig 8), the support seat having two support stoppers(37,38,39) for limiting the rotation of the rotating member in the rotating member support, the rotating member having at least one rotating member wing(63, fig 14) cooperating with two support stoppers for limiting the rotation of the rotating member in the rotating member support, the rotating member being mountable to the holder backplate, such that the holder unit is rotatable together with the rotating member in the support seat. However Harita may not teach wherein the rotating member includes a rotating member cutout and the rotating member support includes a support cutout, the rotating member cutout and the support cutout being aligned, such as to allow the passage of a cable for the powering of a tablet or the like.
Choi teaches a similar mounting system for rotatably mounting a display between landscape and portrait orientations(fig 2,3), and further teaches the use of a rotating member having a rotating member cutout(12a) and a rotating member support(110) having a support cutout(111), the rotating member cutout and support member cutout being aligned so as to allow passage of a cable(62 fig 18) for powering of a tablet or the like. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the aligned cutouts of Choi with the mounting system of Harita, as this would allow for the accommodation and concealment of a cable for powering the device as taught by Choi.
[claim 2] wherein the two support stoppers limit the rotation of the rotating member in the rotating member support up to an angle of 90 degrees or less(fig 10,11).
[claim 3] wherein the rotating member comprises two rotating member wings(63, fig 14) cooperating with the two support stoppers, and wherein the two rotating member wings are arranged diametrically opposite(opposite members 63 in fig 14) on the rotating member and the two support stoppers(37,38) are arranged diametrically opposite on the rotating member support, such that the rotation of the rotating member with the holder unit in the rotating member support is limited to 90 degrees.
[claim 4] wherein the rotating member support comprises one or more support openings(42) for allowing the passage of a respective support fixing means(41) therethrough for mounting the rotating member support to the supporting element.
[claim 5] wherein the support fixing means is a screw(fig 8).
[claim 7] when arranged as above, wherein the rotating member comprises one or more rotating member openings(81,82,84) for engaging a respective rotating member connecting means(83,75,76) and wherein the holder backplate comprises one or more second holder openings(77) allowing the passage of a respective rotating member connecting means such as to mount the holder unit to the rotating member, wherein the support cutout is dimensioned such as to allow unobstructed passage of a respective rotating member connecting means.
[claim 8] wherein the rotating member connecting means is a screw(fig 6), and further preferably comprising a washer interposed between the screw and the holder backplate.
[claim 9] Harita teaches wherein the rotating member comprises a rotating member recess or opening(81,82) and the holder backplate comprises a holder protrusion(75,76), the rotating member recess or opening being adapted to cooperate with the holder protrusion when the holder unit is mounted to the rotating member. Harita however does not teach that the rotating member comprises the protrusion and the holder backplate comprises the recess or opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to reverse the location of the protrusions and openings such that the protrusion was on the rotating member and the openings were on the backplate as a matter of simple design choice, as this would merely be switching the location of the elements which is viewed as a matter of simple design choice.
[claim 10] wherein the rotating member protrusion is connected to the holder recess or holder opening in a form-fitting manner(fig 6,7).
[claim 11] wherein the rotating member protrusion and the holder recess or the holder opening are polygonal(fig 6), in particular square, or square with rounded edges.
[claim 16] wherein the mounting system is a wall mount and the supporting element is a wall(fig 8).
[claim 17] when arranged as above, Choi further teaches a cable mount(62) provided with a plug(61 in fig 18) for electrically connecting a tablet or the like to a cable.
[claim 18] Harita in view of Choi teaches a mounting system as detailed above, however Harita does not provide details as to what the rotating member and rotating member support are made of. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the rotating member and rotating member support out of any known suitable material, such as anodized aluminum or CNC machined high-performance polymers, as a matter of simple design choice, as one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be able to select from known materials without undue experimentation.
[claim 19] wherein the friction between the rotating member and the rotating member support is adjusted such as to stably maintain the tablet or the like in a horizontal or a vertical position as compared to the ground and/or wherein the friction between the rotating member, the rotating member support and the holder backplate is adjusted such as to stably maintain the tablet or the like in a horizontal or a vertical position as compared to the ground(fig 9).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harita et al. in view of Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mulhern et al.(US9310837).
[claim 12] Harita in view of Choi teaches a mounting system as detailed above, however Harita and Choi do not teach that the holder unit is made in one piece and has a rectangular shape with guides for the tablet or the like on three sides, a fourth side being open for introduction of the tablet or the like. Mulhern teaches a similar mounting system, and further teaches the use of a one piece holder unit(320) in a rectangular shape with guides for the tablet or the like on three sides, a fourth side(lower side in figure 1) being open for introduction of the tablet or the like(fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the holder unit of Mulhern with the mounting system of Harita in view of Choi, as this would allow for the removable support of tablets as taught by Mulhern.
[claim 13] Harita in view of Choi in view of Mulhern teaches a mounting system as detailed above, however they do not teach that the holder backplate is provided, on its inner side facing a tablet or the like in a mounted state, with a covering layer made of leather, imitation leather or non-woven fabric which at least partially covers the inner side. The use of covering layers to provide cushioning or to increase the aesthetic appearance of supports is well known in the art, as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a covering layer of leather, imitation leather or non-woven fabric on the inner side of the holder unit of Harita in view of Choi in view of Mulhern, as this could provide cushioning to the supported device, and increase the aesthetic appearance of the device.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harita et al. in view of Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nielsen et al.(US20150207909).
[claim 14] Harita in view of Choi teaches a mounting system as detailed above, however neither Harita nor Choi teach wherein the holder unit further comprises a holder frame with a receptacle for the retention of the tablet or the like in the mounted state thereof in the receptacle and a holder mount, wherein the holder mount is interposed between the holder frame and the holder backplate, the holder mount being mounted to the holder backplate, preferably by means of one or more screws. Nielsen teaches a similar mounting system for a tablet(2), and further teaches a holder unit further comprises a holder frame(3) with a receptacle(central open section) for the retention of the tablet(2) or the like in the mounted state thereof in the receptacle and a holder mount(6), wherein the holder mount is interposed between the holder frame and the holder backplate(25), the holder mount being mounted to the holder backplate, preferably by means of one or more screws(received in holes 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the holder unit of Nielsen with the mounting system of Harita in view of Choi as this would allow for the removable support of tablets as taught by Nielsen.
[claim 15] wherein the holder frame is mounted to the holder mount by suitable fastening means(holder frame integrally fastened to the holder frame).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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, as well as being amended to overcome the above claim objections and 112 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art teaches a mounting system as defined in claim 4, as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach a holder backplate with one or more first holder openings can be aligned with the respective one more support openings by rotating the holder unit with respect to the rotating member support, the first holder openings being dimensioned such as to allow unobstructed passage of the support fixing means therethrough as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20250243971, US12251008, US20240328576, US12092258, US20240084956, US11889646, US10948946, US10638620, US9310840.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights