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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers in Figures 1A-1F are not well define, legible, and suitable for reproduction. In addition, the details of the pawl spring and cam mechanism are unclear in Figure 1D. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 5, 8 and 11, each instance of “one” should read --on--
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
In regards to claim 3, “the rotational damper” lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears claim 3 should depend on claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1-3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US Pat. No. 9,453,522 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Yu teaches a secure mobile device display mount, comprising: a hinge body (2) dimensioned to hold a mobile device (7, Fig. 8); a west claw (left 3, Fig. 4) secured to the hinge body, the west claw rotatable relative to the hinge body (about 311, Fig. 3), the west claw comprising one or more protrusions (32, Fig. 3) extending over the mobile device when the mobile device is on the hinge body; a north claw (5) secured to the hinge body, the north claw adjustable in length (via positioning member 6, Fig. 5), the north claw comprising one or more protrusions (i.e.; the upper protrusion of 5) extending over the mobile device when the mobile device is on the hinge body; an east claw (right 3) secured to the hinge body, the east claw adjustable in distance between the west claw and the east claw (see positions in Fig. 7), the east claw comprising one or more protrusions (32) extending over the mobile device when the mobile device is on the hinge body; wherein a rear surface of the mobile device is exposed when the west claw is rotated (e.g.; see Fig. 8).
In regards to claim 2, Yu teaches a rotational damper (33) engaged to the west claw, the rotational damper operative to limit rotational movement of the west claw (e.g.; via anti-skid grooves 332).
In regards to claim 3, You teaches the rotational damper (33) further biases the rotation movement of the west claw towards the hinge body (e.g.; toward the position of Fig. 2 via gravity when the first positioning member 4 is unlocked).
In regards to claim 7, Yu teaches a method of securing a mobile device in a secure mobile device display mount, comprising: placing the mobile device (7, Fig. 8) on a hinge body (2), the hinge body comprising a west claw (left 3, Fig. 4), a north claw (5) and an east claw (right 3), such that one edge of the mobile device contacts the west claw; adjusting the north claw in length (via second position member 6) such that the north claw contacts a second edge of the mobile device (see Fig. 8); adjusting the east claw (via first position member 4) such that the east claw contacts a third edge of the mobile device (see Fig. 8); locking all adjustments such that the mobile device is secured to the hinge body (via 4 and 6); wherein the west claw is rotatable (about 311, Fig. 3) such the when the west claw is rotated, a rear surface of the mobile device is exposed (e.g.; see Fig. 8).
In regards to claim 8, Yu teaches the west claw further comprises a rotational damper (33), the rotational damper operative to limit rotational movement of the west claw (e.g.; via anti-skid grooves 332).
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 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US Pat. No. 9,453,522 B2) in view of Liu (US Pat. No. 10,711,812 B2).
In regards to claims 4 and 9, Yu does not teach a pawl spring and cam mechanism coupled to the north claw, the pawl spring and cam mechanism operative to perform the adjustment of the length of the north claw (claim 4); and adjustment of the length of the north claw is performed via adjustment of a pawl spring and cam mechanism coupled to the north claw (claim 9).
Liu teaches a pawl spring (7, 63) and cam mechanism (4) coupled to a claw (2), the pawl spring and cam mechanism operative to perform the adjustment of the length of the claw.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Yu such that a pawl spring and cam mechanism is coupled to the north claw, the pawl spring and cam mechanism operative to perform the adjustment of the length of the north claw (claim 4); and adjustment of the length of the north claw is performed via adjustment of a pawl spring and cam mechanism coupled to the north claw (claim 9) as taught by Liu. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing more controlled adjustment of the north claw.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US Pat. No. 9,453,522 B2) in view of Brassard (US Pat. No. 10,208,777 B1).
In regards to claims 5 and 10, Yu does not teach a clamp screw coupled to the east claw, the clamp screw operative to provide adjustment of the distance between the west claw and the east claw (claim 5); and adjustment of the east claw is performed via adjustment of a clamp screw coupled to the east claw (claim 10).
Brassard teaches the use of a clamp screw coupled to an east claw to provide adjustment of the distance between west and east claws (Col 3, Lines 14-19).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Yu such that a clamp screw is coupled to the east claw, the clamp screw operative to provide adjustment of the distance between the west claw and the east claw (claim 5); and adjustment of the east claw is performed via adjustment of a clamp screw coupled to the east claw (claim 10). The motivation would be for the purpose of adjusting the ends of the claws via conventional means as taught by Brassard (Col 3, Lines 14-19), thus providing additional fine adjustment of the end of the claws.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US Pat. No. 9,453,522 B2) in view of Pickarz (US Pub. No. 2008/0207279 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Yu does not teach one or more pads secured to the hinge body, the west claw, the north claw and the east claw. Pickarz teaches one or more pads (5, 6, 7) secured to a body (1), west claw (3), north claw (4) and east claw (3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Yu’s device such that one or more pads are secured to the hinge body, the west claw, the north claw and the east claw. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing cushioning as taught by Pickarz (Para 0025).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights