www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/722,336
`
`12/20/2019
`
`Kenichi SHINDO
`
`PANDP0278USO1ICON
`
`8829
`
`MARKD. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`ISTH FLOOR
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`WU,JERRY
`
`2841
`
`02/19/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerotto.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/722,336
`Examiner
`JERRY WU
`
`Applicant(s)
`SHINDO etal.
`Art Unit
`2841
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/17/20.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-5 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CC) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected.
`OO Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)L The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 12/20/19 is/are: a)() accepted or b)) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`cc) None ofthe:
`b)LJ Some**
`a)Y) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210213
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/722,336
`Art Unit: 2841
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthefirst
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`1.
`
`In claim 3, “the second unit includes a projecting portion which the projection abuts” could be
`
`confuse. This limitation is not found in the SPEC/drawing. Further clarification is required.
`
`2.
`
`The Examinerrespectfully requests that the Applicant(s) review all claims for any such
`
`similar issues.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Drawings
`
`a.
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show
`
`every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations,
`
`discussed the claim objections (such as “projecting portion”) must be shownorthe
`
`feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
`
`Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to
`
`the Office action to avoid abandonmentof the application. Any amended replacement drawing
`
`sheet should includeall of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet,
`
`even if only one figure is being amended. Thefigure 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/722,336
`Art Unit: 2841
`
`Page 3
`
`be renumbered and appropriate changes madeto 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 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground ofrejection if the prior art
`
`relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same undereither status.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which formsthe basis for all obviousness
`
`rejectionsset 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 of this
`title, 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 whichthe invention was made.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lev (US:
`
`20090179435).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/722,336
`Art Unit: 2841
`
`Page 4
`
`3.
`
`With regard claim 1, Lev disclosed An electronic device including a first unit and a
`
`second unit openable to the first unit (abstract; fig 1-3; at least 10 and 12 are openable), the
`
`electronic device comprising: a latch mechanism (at least the mechanism shownin fig 2) that
`
`fixes the second unit in a closedstate (at least fig 3A is a closed state) with respect to thefirst
`
`unit, wherein the latch mechanism includes: a latch rotatable around a rotation shaft (at least fig
`
`3, 84 rotatable around 62) between a housing position and a lock position (compare fig 3C and
`
`fig 3A), the latch fixing the first unit and the second unitin the closedstate at the lock position
`
`(fig 3A); and an elastic member(at least 60/62) biasing the rotation shaft in a predetermined
`
`direction in the closed state (see fig 3).
`
`Lev lacks teaching: an elastic member disposed on both sides of the rotation shaft.
`
`Examiner’s note: at least fig 2 shows elastic member on the other side of the other elastic
`
`memberlabeled as 62. However Lev did not clearly label the other one.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date and/orat the time the invention was madeto have an elastic member disposed on both
`
`sides of the rotation shaft, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working
`
`parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193
`
`USPQ 8. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature
`
`(duplicate the elastic member on both sides of the rotation shaft; could be duplicated 62 or 64, or
`
`both) is to provide a balanceelastic force.
`
`4,
`
`With regard claim 2, the modified Lev further disclosed the latch includes a projection
`
`(the projection projected from the straight body of 50) projecting toward a direction of a rotation
`
`radius at an end most distance from the rotation shaft (see also fig 3).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/722,336
`Art Unit: 2841
`
`Page 5
`
`5.
`
`With regard claim 3, the modified Lev further disclosed the second unit includes a
`
`projecting portion which the projection abuts(at least fig 3).
`
`6.
`
`With regard claim 4, the modified Lev further disclosed the first unit includes an input
`
`portion, and the second unit includes a display (paragraph [006]-[009]).
`
`7.
`
`With regard claim 5, the modified Lev further disclosed the electronic deviceis a
`
`notebook-type personal computer, a detachable-type computer, a word processor, or an
`
`electronic dictionary (at least fig 1-2).
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lev (US:
`
`20090179435) and further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice (EON).
`
`9.
`
`With regard claim 1, Lev disclosed An electronic device including a first unit and a
`
`second unit openable to the first unit (abstract; fig 1-3; at least 10 and 12 are openable), the
`
`electronic device comprising: a latch mechanism (at least the mechanism shownin fig 2) that
`
`fixes the second unit in a closedstate (at least fig 3A is a closed state) with respect to thefirst
`
`unit, wherein the latch mechanism includes: a latch rotatable around a rotation shaft (at least fig
`
`3, 84 rotatable around 62) between a housing position and a lock position (compare fig 3C and
`
`fig 3A), the latch fixing the first unit and the second unitin the closedstate at the lock position
`
`(fig 3A); and an elastic member(at least 60/62) biasing the rotation shaft in a predetermined
`
`direction in the closed state (see fig 3).
`
`Lev lacks teaching: an elastic member disposed on both sides of the rotation shaft.
`
`Examiner’s note: at least fig 2 shows elastic member on the other side of the other elastic
`
`memberlabeled as 62. However Lev did not clearly label the other one.
`
`However, Examinertake official notice (EON)that it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/722,336
`Art Unit: 2841
`
`Page 6
`
`elastic memberdisposed on both sides of the rotation shaft and modify to previous discussed
`
`structure.
`
`The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature
`
`(duplicate the elastic member on both sides of the rotation shaft; could be duplicated 62 or 64, or
`
`both) is to provide a balanceelastic force.
`
`10. With regard claim 2, the modified Lev further disclosed the latch includes a projection
`
`(the projection projected from the straight body of 50) projecting toward a direction of a rotation
`
`radius at an end most distance from the rotation shaft (see also fig 3).
`
`11. With regard claim 3, the modified Lev further disclosed the second unit includes a
`
`projecting portion which the projection abuts(at least fig 3).
`
`12. With regard claim 4, the modified Lev further disclosed the first unit includes an input
`
`portion, and the second unit includes a display (paragraph [006]-[009]).
`
`13. With regard claim 5, the modified Lev further disclosed the electronic deviceis a
`
`notebook-type personal computer, a detachable-type computer, a word processor, or an
`
`electronic dictionary (at least fig 1-2).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`4,
`
`Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “The hook 84 is also formed by a chamfer
`
`surface that is not arranged at an end mostdistance from the rotation shaft. Therefore, claim 2 is
`
`further patentable over Lev. Accordingly, all claims 1-5 are believed to be allowable and the
`
`application is believed to be in condition for allowance. A prompt action to such endis earnestly
`
`solicited. Applicant notes the absence in this reply of any comments on the other contentions set
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/722,336
`Art Unit: 2841
`
`Page 7
`
`forth in the Office Action should not be construed to be an acquiescence therein. Rather, no
`
`commentis needed since the rejections should be withdrawnforat least the foregoing reasons.”
`
`(pages 3-5).
`
`Examiner’s Answer: the Examinerrespectfully disagrees and notesthat:
`
`Examiner’s note: at least fig 2 shows elastic member on the other side of the other elastic
`
`memberlabeled as 62. However Levdid not clearly label the other one.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date and/orat the time the invention was madeto have an elastic member disposed on both
`
`sides of the rotation shaft, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working
`
`parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193
`
`USPQ 8. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature
`
`(duplicate the elastic member on both sides of the rotation shaft; could be duplicated 62 or 64, or
`
`both) is to provide a balanceelastic force.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office
`
`action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicantis
`
`reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHSfrom
`
`the mailing date of this action. In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO MONTHSofthe mailing
`
`date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action
`
`is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/722,336
`Art Unit: 2841
`
`Page 8
`
`the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX
`
`MONTHSfrom the date ofthis final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone numberis (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be
`
`reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
`
`Examinerinterviewsare available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTOsupplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
`
`the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request (AIR)at http://www.uspto. gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571)272-3740. The fax phone numberfor the organization where
`
`this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
`
`from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
`
`through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
`
`direct-uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
`
`Service Representative or access to the automated information system,call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
`
`CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`JERRY WU/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
`
`