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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal terminology, specifically, “disclosure”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of method step(s) “the plurality of keys trigger the corresponding switching devices through the light-transmiting member under an action of the external force to control the first displayed object” in this apparatus claim renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear a device must actually perform these steps, or merely be capable of such performance, in order to read upon these limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering the above limitation to mean “the plurality of keys [can] trigger the corresponding switching devices through the light-transmiting member under an action of the external force to control the first displayed object”.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation of method step(s) “wherein the wire of length L1 is coiled two times with a diameter of 10 cm and then rested for 24 hours, and then a distance between two endpoints of the wire after stretching is measured to be L2, wherein L2/L1>0.6” in this apparatus claim renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear a device must actually perform these steps, or merely be capable of such performance, in order to read upon these limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering the above limitation to mean “wherein the wire of length L1 [can be] coiled two times with a diameter of 10 cm and then rested for 24 hours, and then a distance between two endpoints of the wire after stretching [can be] measured to be L2, wherein L2/L1>0.6”.
Claims 16-20 indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cordova (20040258265). Cordova teaches a display device, including: a display stand (10, 19), a wire (16), and a first displayed object (18), wherein the display stand is equipped with a main control circuit board (in 17), wherein the display stand includes a first display shelf (19), a second display shelf (10), and a fastener (29), and the fastener is configured to pass through the first display shelf and is threadedly connected to the second display shelf (Fig. 4 & par. 48), and the first displayed object is able to be experienced by a user and is connected to the main control circuit board through the wire (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova (20040258265) in view of Yook (WO2021193992). Cordova teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a wire (16); but fail(s) to teach first & second conductive core wires and an elastic covering. However, Yook teaches a wire (Fig. 1) that includes a first conductive core wire (120a) and a second conductive core wire (130a) electrically insulated from each other (via 120b & 130b) and an elastic covering (160) wrapping the first conductive core wire and the second conductive core wire, the main control circuit board transmits signals to the first displayed object through the first conductive core wire and the second conductive core wire, the elastic covering has a resilience superior to a resilience of either of the first conductive core wire and the second conductive core wire to allow the wire to stretch under the resilience of the elastic covering after the elastic covering is coiled (par. 31), wherein the wire of length L1 can be coiled two times with a diameter of 10 cm and then rested for 24 hours, and then a distance between two endpoints of the wire after stretching is measured to be L2, wherein L2/L1>0.6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a wire, as taught by Yook, for the wire of Cordova, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve audio signal quality (as suggested by par. 54 of Yook).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 & 14 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.
Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights