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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 and 04/03/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-10, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (20070088875). With respect to claim 1, Martin et al. discloses a stand (16) for a display screen (12, 20), the stand (16) comprising: a base (18) for supporting the display screen (12, 20) on a surface; and an attachment mount (16, see figures 5 and 6) extending from the base (18) for attachment to a display screen (12, 20); the base (18) comprising a compartment (38) for housing at least one peripheral device (46), the compartment (38) including an electrical connector (inherent) for connecting to the at least one peripheral device (46); and the compartment (38) being changeable between an open and a closed position (see for example, paragraphs [0017], [0024]). With respect to claim 2, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) is for connecting the at least one peripheral device (46) to a power supply remote from the stand (16). With respect to claim 3, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 2, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) is connectable to the power supply remote from the stand (16) by a cable (30, 32) which exits the base (18). With respect to claim 4, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) comprises at least one mains plug socket. With respect to claim 5, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) is for connecting the at least one peripheral device (46) to a display screen (12, 20) attached to the attachment mount (16, see figures 5 and 6). With respect to claim 6, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) is fixedly mounted within the compartment (38). With respect to claim 7, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) comprises at least one-HDMI audio/video socket (see for example paragraph [0021]). With respect to claim 8, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) comprises at least one-USB power/data socket (see for example paragraphs [0020] and [0021]). With respect to claim 9, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the base (18) includes a gap (40, see for example figures 3 and 4) for allowing the cabling of the electrical connector (inherent) to pass therethrough and into the compartment (38). With respect to claim 10, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 9, wherein the gap (40, see for example figures 3 and 4) is proximate to the attachment post (16, see figures 5 and 6). With respect to claim 16, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the electrical connector (inherent) is a first electrical connector (48), and further comprising a second electrical connector (48) for connecting the at least one peripheral device (22, 26, 28, 56, 58, 60, 62, see figures 1 and 7) to a display screen (12, 20) attached to the attachment mount (16, see figures 5 and 6). With respect to claim 18, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral device (22, 26, 28, 56, 58, 60, 62, see figures 1 and 7) is a low-profile peripheral device. With respect to claim 19, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the at least one peripheral device (22, 26, 28, 56, 58, 60, 62, see figures 1 and 7) is for providing additional functionality to a display screen (12, 20), such as providing an input of additional media content. With respect to claim 20, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the display screen (12, 20) is attached to the attachment mount (16, see figures 5 and 6), and wherein the at least one peripheral device (22, 26, 28, 56, 58, 60, 62, see figures 1 and 7) is housed within the compartment (38) and connected to both the electrical connector (inherent) and to the display screen (12, 20).
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (20070088875). With respect to claim 17, Martin et al. discloses the stand (16) of claim 1, wherein the base (18). Martin et al. fails to expressly disclose the base (18) including feet made from a material which substantially resists manual movement through friction contact with a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Martin et al. with feet. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate feet or other extending members to support the base on a supporting surface to accommodate uneven supporting surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as to claims 11-15, patentability resides, at least in part, in the compartment is a drawer, the drawer comprising a cavity within the base and a first portion of the base is configured to be slidably movable between an open and a closed position to respectively reveal and conceal the cavity as claimed and including all of the other limitations of the base claim(s) respectfully.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA LEA-EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
LISA LEA-EDMONDS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/LISA LEA-EDMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847 2026-09-02
