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 .
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 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ansari US 11803251.
Regarding claim 1, Ansari US 11803251 discloses (in Fig. 8) a modular computer peripheral including:
a display (display of 800) configured to be communicatively coupled to a computing device (800),
the display (display of 800) including a first electrical connection (810) and a second electrical connection (814); and
a keyboard including a first keyboard section (802) and a second keyboard section (804) each configured to be communicatively coupled to the computing device (800),
wherein the first keyboard section (802) is configured to be electrically coupled to the first electrical connection (810) to receive first charging power (see col. 11 ln. 37-39), and
the second keyboard section (804) is configured to be electrically coupled to the second electrical connection (814) to receive second charging power (see col. 11 ln. 37-39).
Regarding claim 14, Ansari discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the display (display of 800) is configured to receive input charging power from the computing device (800) and to:
provide, to the first keyboard section (802) via the first electrical connection (810), the first charging power derived from the input charging power (see col. 11 ln. 37-39); and
provide, to the second keyboard section (804) via the second electrical connection (814), the second charging power derived from the input charging power (see col. 11 ln. 37-39).
Regarding claim 15, Ansari discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the display (display of 800) includes a display screen (display screen of 800) and a base section (base section of 800).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar US 20130082924.
Regarding claim 1, Kumar US 20130082924 discloses (in Fig. 17) a modular computer peripheral including:
a display (display of 100) configured to be communicatively coupled to a computing device (100),
the display (display of 100) including a first electrical connection (801/803 in Fig. 8 not shown in Fig. 17) and a second electrical connection (other 801/803 see [0089] and [0090]; not shown in Fig. 17); and
a keyboard including a first keyboard section (left 101/1701) and a second keyboard section (right 101/1702) each configured to be communicatively coupled to the computing device (100),
wherein the first keyboard section (left 101/1701) is configured to be electrically coupled to the first electrical connection (801/803 through 704 see [0089]) to receive first charging power (left 101/1701 receives power through 701 which corresponds to 801 see [0083] and [0086]), and
the second keyboard section (right 101/1702) is configured to be electrically coupled to the second electrical connection (other 801/803) to receive second charging power (right 101/1702 receives power through 701 which corresponds to 801 see [0083] and [0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the first keyboard section (left 101/1701) is configured to be removably physically coupled to the second keyboard section (right 101/1702; since 101 can couple to another 101 using the coupling interfaces of Fig. 7 see [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 2, wherein the first keyboard section (left 101/1701) is configured to be removably physically coupled to the second keyboard section (right 101/1702) via a magnetic connection (702/703 in Fig. 7 see [0084]).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 2, wherein the first keyboard section (left 101/1701) is configured to be removably physically coupled to a first side of the display (100 as slots 803; see [0090]).
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) 5-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar as applied to claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 4, wherein the second keyboard section (right 101/1701) is configured to be removably physically coupled to the first side of the display (100 as depicted in Fig. 17; Kumar also discloses that additional connection 801/803 can be located on other edges of 100 see [0090]).
Kumar does not explicitly disclose the second keyboard section is configured to be removably physically coupled to a second side of the display.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have connections 801/803 of Kumar positioned on a first and opposite second side of the display, and have the second keyboard section is configured to be removably physically coupled to a second side of the display, in order to provide the user with a variety of possibilities of attachment.
Regarding claim 6, Kumar discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 5, wherein the first side is opposite the second side (as would be depicted in modified Fig. 17 as modified by claim 5).
Regarding claim 20, Kumar discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the display (100) includes a first magnetic connection (802 in Fig. 8) to physically connect a first side of the display (100) to the first keyboard section (left 101/1701), and
includes a second magnetic connection (other 802 in Fig. 8) to physically connect the first side of the display (100) to the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 as depicted in Fig. 17), wherein the first side of the display is opposite the second side of the display.
Kumar does not explicitly disclose the second magnetic connection to physically connect a second side of the display to the second keyboard section, wherein the first side of the display is opposite the second side of the display.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate parts and have the second magnetic connection to physically connect a second side of the display to the second keyboard section, wherein the first side of the display is opposite the second side of the display, in order to provide the user with an alternate positioning, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hargreaves US 20090138637.
Regarding claim 7, Kumar discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 1.
Kumar does not explicitly disclose a first tilting component removably coupled to the first keyboard section and a second tilting component removably coupled to the second keyboard section.
However, Hargreaves discloses (in Fig. 8) a tilting component (254) removably coupled to a first keyboard section (202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second keyboard sections of Kumar further include respective tilting component, as taught by Hargreaves and have a first tilting component removably coupled to the first keyboard section and a second tilting component removably coupled to the second keyboard section, in order to adjust a tenting angle (see [0058] of Hargreaves).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar in view of Hargreaves discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 7, wherein the first tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to a bottom surface of the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar; as depicted in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves) and the second tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to a bottom surface of the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar; as depicted in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar in view of Hargreaves discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 8, wherein the first tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to the bottom surface of the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar; as depicted in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves) such that the first tilting (254 of Hargreaves) component tilts the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar) off of a surface (239 in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves) on which the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar) is placed, and
wherein the second tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to the bottom surface of the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar) such that the second tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) tilts the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar) off of the surface (239 in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves) on which the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar; as depicted in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves) is placed.
Regarding claim 10, Kumar in view of Hargreaves discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 9, wherein the first tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to a back section of the bottom surface of the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar; as depicted in [0065] and Fig. 8 of Hargreaves), and
wherein the second tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to a back section of the bottom surface of the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar; as depicted in [0065] and Fig. 8 of Hargreaves).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar in view of Hargreaves discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 9, wherein the first tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to a front section of the bottom surface of the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar; as depicted in [0065] and Fig. 8 of Hargreaves), and
wherein the second tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to a front section of the bottom surface of the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar; as depicted in [0065] and Fig. 8 of Hargreaves).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar in view of Hargreaves discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 9, wherein the first tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to an inner-edge section (as 254 extends from an outer edge section, across an inner-edge section to an opposite outer-edge section as depicted in Fig. 8 and 13 of Hargreaves) of the bottom surface of the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar; as depicted in [0065] and Fig. 8 of Hargreaves), and
wherein the second tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to an inner-edge section (as 254 extends from an outer edge section, across an inner-edge section to an opposite outer-edge section as depicted in Fig. 8 and 13 of Hargreaves) of the bottom surface of the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar; as depicted in [0065] and Fig. 8 of Hargreaves).
Regarding claim 13, Kumar in view of Hargreaves discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 9, wherein the first tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to an outer-edge section of the bottom surface of the first keyboard section (left 101/1701 of Kumar; as depicted in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves), and
wherein the second tilting component (254 of Hargreaves) is configured to be removably physically coupled to an outer-edge section of the bottom surface of the second keyboard section (right 101/1702 of Kumar; as depicted in Fig. 8 of Hargreaves).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lin US 20130329351.
Regarding claim 16, Ansari discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 15.
Ansari does not explicitly disclose wherein the base section includes one or more sliding tracks.
However, Lin discloses a base section (11 in Fig. 1) including one or more sliding tracks (119 shown in Fig. 3; not numbered in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the base section of Ansari include one or more sliding tracks, as taught by Lin, in order to slidably rotate the display and provide the user with different orientations.
Regarding claim 17, Ansari in view of Lin discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 16.
Ansari does not explicitly disclose the display including at least one sliding coupler configured to be slidably coupled to the one or more sliding tracks.
However, Lin discloses a display (12 in Fig. 1) includes at least one sliding coupler 14) configured to be slidably coupled to the one or more sliding tracks (119 shown in Fig. 3; not numbered in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the display of Ansari include at least one sliding coupler configured to be slidably coupled to the one or more sliding tracks, as taught by Lin, in order to slidably rotate the display and provide the user with different orientations.
Regarding claim 18, Ansari in view of Lin discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 17.
Ansari does not explicitly disclose the display including an orientation arm rotatably coupled to the display screen at a first end and to the base section at a second end.
However, Lin discloses a display (12 in Fig. 1) includes an orientation arm (13 in Fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the display screen (12) at a first end and to the base section (11) at a second end (as depicted in Fig. 1 and 6b-7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the display of Ansari include an orientation arm rotatably coupled to the display screen at a first end and to the base section at a second end, as taught by Lin, in order to slidably rotate the display and provide the user with different orientations.
Regarding claim 19, Ansari in view of Lin discloses the modular computer peripheral of claim 18, wherein sliding the display screen (12 of Lin) along the one or more sliding tracks (119 of Lin) rotates the display screen (12 of Lin) about the orientation arm (13 as depicted in Fig. 2, 5a and 6a of Lin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bowen US 5644338 Fig. 12; Goldbaum US 20140043254 Fig. 9; Bowen US 20120111173 Fig. 26 disclose a display with first and second keyboard sections on respective opposite sides of the display.
Kikinis US 5590382 Fig. 26a-b; Huang US 20180164897 Fig. 1-4c; Huang US 20140168086 Fig. 1-6 disclose a detachable split keyboard.
Kozak US 6972945 Fig. 4a-b discloses a connection between a keyboard and a display.
Aoki US 20150198980 Fig. 3a-d discloses a sliding display screen the rotates about an orientation arm as it slides along tracks of a base.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 3 pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights