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 .
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 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the touchscreen panel" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1, 5-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2020/0081492 in view of Bae et al. US 2017/0142239 in view of Bundalo et al. US 2019/0005953, and in view of Park et al. US 2018/0343755.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a pocket computer (a handheld computer, See ¶ 21); a housing including a front face, a back face, at least one top panel, a bottom panel, and opposite side panels extending between the at least one top panel and the bottom panel (the housing structures have front face, rear face, bottom sidewall, and top sidewall, see abstract, ¶27, and Figs 2, 8); a touchscreen display on the front face (a touchscreen display on the front face, See ¶32); at least one camera on the housing (cameras 56, See ¶42); at least one projector on the housing and structured (two projectors 58R, 58F, See ¶44-¶46); a microphone (microphones, See ¶23); at least one audio speaker (speakers, See ¶23); a plurality of connection ports (connector ports and data ports, See ¶26, and ¶40).
Wang fails to teach at least one USB port, at least one HDMI port, a plurality of memory card slots accessible on an exterior of the housing, and a charger connection port.
Bae teaches the smartphone computer has the housing structures include front face, rear face, bottom sidewall, and top sidewall (See ¶94-¶95, Figs 2, 3A), projectors, (See ¶47), cameras (See ¶44), the charger jack, at least one USB, at least one HDMI (See ¶59, and ¶87, Figs 2), the external memory interface 234 (See ¶67, Figs 2, 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the at least one USB, the at least one HDMI, the external memory interface, and the charger jack, as Bae teaches, to modify the connection ports of Wang. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to produce the interface of the housing of the electronic device, the addition of such a process reduces costs and reduce productivity.
Wang and Bae fail to teach at least one high definition digital camera.
Bundalo teaches multiple high definition digital cameras. (See Bundalo ¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the multiple high definition digital cameras, as Bundalo teaches, to modify the cameras of Wang and Bae. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to improve the better or large resolution of the images and the video being captured. ( See Bundalo ¶22).
Wang, Bundalo and Bae fail to teach the at least one top panel.
Park teaches the smart phone computer and the housing structure including the two roof top sidewalls. (See Park ¶74, ¶100, ¶121, and Fig 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the housing structure including the two roof top sidewalls, as Bae teaches, to modify the housing structures of Wang, Bundalo and Bae. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to improve the flexible image being displayed on any surfaces.
Regarding claim 5, both Wang and Bae teach the pocket computer as recited in Claim 4 further comprising a fingerprint scanner on an exterior of the housing for recognizing a user’s fingerprint to activate and unlock the pocket computer for use (the biometric sensors. See Wang ¶63, and Bae ¶68).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the pocket computer as recited in Claim 5 further comprising a laser pointer (laser pointer 52, ¶ 41) on an exterior of the housing.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the pocket computer as recited in Claim 7 wherein the housing includes two top panels positioned and disposed at an angle relative to one another and each of the two top panels angled relative to an adjacent one of the opposite side panels at an angle of less than 90 degrees. (Park teaches the smart phone computer and the housing structure including the two roof top sidewalls. The angle of the two roof top sidewalls of the pentagonal housing shape is less than 90 degrees. See Park ¶74, ¶100, ¶121, and Fig 10).
Regarding claim 9, Bundalo teaches the pocket computer as recited in Claim 8 further comprising a plurality of cameras, including at least one camera on each of the two top panels, and at least one camera on at least one of the opposite side panels. (Bundalo Par. 22 explained multiple high definition cameras, such as more front-facing cameras and more rear facing cameras).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the pocket computer as recited in claim 9 further comprising a plurality of the projectors including at least one projector on each of the two top panels, and at least one projector on at least one of the opposite side panels. (Wang Par. 39, 45-47 explained the projectors 58F, 58R may be located in an area of display 20 such as area 48 (e.g., under a window). Projectors may also be located behind sidewall portions 20W and front portion 20F. Par. 41, 45-47 explained using the projectors are located elsewhere in the device 10 to project images. It would have been an obvious design choice to relocate at least one well-known element, e.g., the projectors 58F, 58R to the desired locations as applicant claimed. Thus, relocation of the well-known elements are not patentable; see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04 (IV) states relocate at least one well-known element, e.g., the projectors 58F, 58R were held unpatentable and would not have modified the operation of the display device).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Bae, Bundalo and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawaqedy et al. US 2021/0310600.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, Bae, Bundalo and Park fail to teach first and second support feet on the housing and structured and disposed to move between a stowed position flush with the front face and the back face and a deployed, operable position wherein the support feet are extended out perpendicular to the front face and the back face on opposite sides of the housing and adjacent the bottom panel for supporting the pocket computer in an upright position.
Sawaqedy teaches the stand support having a forward leg 20 and a rear leg 40 hinged connected to the mobile computer 110 collapsible position with the front face and the back face by rotated the forward leg 20 and the rear leg 40 inward A and inward C. (See Sawaqedy ¶49, ¶94 and Figs 5, 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the stand support having a forward leg 20 and a rear leg 40 hinged connected to the mobile computer 110 collapsible position with the front face and the back face by rotated the forward leg 20 and the rear leg 40 inward A and inward C, as Sawaqedy teaches, to modify the stand of Wang. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to support the mobile device against the main body. (See Sawaqedy ¶ 4).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Bae, Bundalo and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonnoir US 2020/0374581.
Regarding claim 3, Wang, Bae, Bundalo and Park fail to teach the HDMI port is a mini HDMI port.
Tonnoir teaches the smart phone including the mini HDMI and projectors. See ¶65, ¶4, ¶110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the mini HDMI, as Tonnoir teaches, to modify the housing structures of Wang, Bae, Bundalo and Park. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to improve a better connection for compact devices to larger display screens.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park and Tonnoir, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kraemer et al. US 2021/0318281.
Regarding claim 4, Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park and Tonnoir fail to teach an odor sensor on the housing.
Kraemer teaches a mobile device having the odor sensor. (See Kraemer ¶13-¶16 and Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the odor sensor, as Kraemer teaches, to modify the housing structures of Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park and Tonnoir. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to monitor the gas odor for person in the danger zone, while sending a message alert and displayed on the mobile device. Kraemer ¶11, ¶15.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park, Tonnoir and Kraemer as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zenoff US 2017/0205854.
Regarding claim 7, Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park, Tonnoir and Kraemer fail to teach a hook on the housing for supporting the pocket computer on a lanyard or chain.
Zenoff teaches smart phone computer having the hook and lanyard. See ¶48, ¶126.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ the hook and lanyard, as Zenoff teaches, to modify the housing structures of Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park, Tonnoir and Kraemer. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to improve a better support the smart phone computer and mountable on a head of user.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park, Tonnoir, Kraemer and Zenoff as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nagao et al. US 2021/00988834.
Regarding claim 11, Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park, Tonnoir, Kraemer and Zenoff fail to teach a touchscreen display on the back face of the housing.
Regarding claim 12, Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park, Tonnoir, Kraemer and Zenoff fail to teach the pocket computer as recited in claim 11 further comprising a solar panel covering the touchscreen panel on the back face for recharging an internal power source of the pocket computer.
Nagao teaches the smartphone having the cover panel 2, the display panel 121, the touch panel 130, and the solar panel 210 are disposed to overlap in parallel with each other, the touch panel 130 is attached to a back surface of the panel 2, the solar panel 210 is attached to a back surface of the touch panel 130. (See Nagao ¶ 39, and Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) was made to employ a solar panel covering the touchscreen panel on the back face, as Nagao teaches, to modify the housing structures of Wang, Bae, Bundalo, Park, Tonnoir, Kraemer and Zenoff. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to improve a better recharging an internal power source of the smartphone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Nguyen whose telephone is 571-272-7697. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm Eastern Time.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. 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.
KEVIN M NGUYEN
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/Kevin M Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628 Telephone: (571) 272-7697
Email: kevin.nguyen2@uspto.gov