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 .
Remarks
1. Pending claims for consideration are claims 1-20. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended.
2. Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
That- no other teachings in Parker show or suggest the combination of (1)
a lock engagement member that is (2) partially disposed within (3) a lock port, and (4) movable by the cable-lock unit when the cable-lock unit is received in the lock port. Therefore, the cable as taught by Parker has been improperly applied in an attempt to arrive at claim 1 and, further, no other teachings of Parker could be considered equivalent to the elements of claim 1 as recited.
In Response to applicant’s argument- the claims have been interpreted in their broadest most reasonable interpretation in light of the applicant’s specification. It is the combination of Parker and Stoddard that teaches the claimed language, neither Parker nor Stoddard alone. Parker teaches the above arguments in the following manner:
(1) lock engagement member, Parker discloses a latch used to secure the cable connector, stating that the cable lock “secures and releases a latch based on user indications and authorizations” (Abstract).
(2) partially disposed within, The latch is positioned within the receiving structure of the vehicle port that houses the cable connector.
(3) lock port, Parker describes one or more ports configured to receive the cable connector of the cable lock(Abstract).
(4) movable by the cable-lock unit when received in the lock port, because the latch secures and releases the connector when the cable-lock unit is inserted or removed, the latch necessarily moves or actuates in response to the connector being received in the port.
That- Parker fails to teach or suggest "the lock engagement member and
the plug are to physically translate in response to receiving the cable-lock unit in the lock port
In Response to applicant’s argument- Parker discloses that insertion of the cable-lock unit causes movement of internal locking components within the port. Parker discloses that a cable connector is received within a port of the device and retained by a latch mechanism, explaining that the cable lock “secures and releases a latch based on user indications and authorizations” (Parker Abstract). Because the latch must move between locked and unlocked positions to capture and release connector, Parker indicates that the lock engagement member physically translates within the port when the cable lock when the cable lock unit is received. Parker further describes the connector or plug being received within a port configured to engage the cable connector [par.0028-0032]), which necessarily requires the plug to translate into the port structure during insertion. Accordingly, Parker teaches that both the lock engagement member and the plug physically translate in response to receiving cable lock unit in the lock port.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 6 is 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.
4. Claim 7 is 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.
5. Claim 13 is 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.
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.
6. Claim 1 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 1 discloses the limitation “partially disposed within the lockport…” and “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to physically translate” with know clear indication as to what applicant means by partially. What are the thresholds for the term partially? Applicant additional utilizes the term “physically translate” without any clear indication as to how the applicant applies the term “physically” rendering the claim language vague and indefinite.
Claim 8 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 8 discloses the limitation “partially disposed within the lockport…” and “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to physically translate” with know clear indication as to what applicant means by partially. What are the thresholds for the term partially? Applicant additional utilizes the term “physically translate” without any clear indication as to how the applicant applies the term “physically” rendering the claim language vague and indefinite.
Claim 14 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 14 discloses the limitation “partially disposed within the lockport…” and “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to physically translate” with no clear indication as to what applicant means by partially. What are the thresholds for the term partially? Applicant additional utilizes the term “physically translate” without any clear indication as to how the applicant applies the term “physically” rendering the claim language vague and indefinite.
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.
7. Claims 1-5 and 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub.No.: US 2020/0149316 A1 to Parker et al(hereafter referenced as Parker) in view of Patent No.: US 9,349,266 to Stoddard.
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses “a computing system comprising: a control unit (control circuitry unit [Fig.9/item 850]) ; “an internal receptacle electrically coupled to the control unit”(receptacle is coupled to accessory [Fig.8/item 810]) ; “a lock port (cable lock port [Fig.23/item 2327]) to receive a cable-lock unit to lock the computing system at a location”(accessory [Fig.23/item 2352]); “a lock engagement member (13 shows a side cross-sectional view of an illustrative cable lock system of FIG. 12, as stored during non-use, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure [par.0039]) partially disposed within the lockport and movable by the cable-lock unit when the cable-lock unit is received in the lock port” (the accessory may include circuitry configured to detect whether it is engaged with the fin box. For example, the accessory may include a switch that is in an opened or closed state depending on whether the accessory is coupled to the fin box. Further, the accessory may electrically couple the two conductors of the cable together only if the accessory is coupled to the fin box [par.0110]) ; “and a plug coupled to the lock engagement member and movable with the lock engagement member”(plug 952 and 954 [Fig.9]) , wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to physically translate in response to receiving the cable-lock unit in the lock port”([Fig.9/item 910] completes the circuit).
Parker does not explicitly disclose “wherein such translation causes the plug to engage the receptacle to complete a circuit between the plug and the receptacle, and the control unit is to determine presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port in response to completion of the circuit between the plug and the receptacle.”
However, Stoddard in an analogous art discloses “wherein such translation causes the plug to engage the receptacle to complete a circuit between the plug and the receptacle, and the control unit is to determine presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port in response to completion of the circuit between the plug and the receptacle.” (Lock/unlock user interface 306 may be configured to provide the user of the platform with a lock/release icon or other suitable interface through which the user may view the current lock status and/or provide a lock status modification request (e.g., a change from lock to unlock or vice versa Stoddard[Col.2/lines 65-Col.3/lines 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Parker’s cable lock system with Stoddard’s cable locking mechanism in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Parker discloses a cable lock system which utilizes a cable lock system, Stoddard additional teaches a locking mechanism which completes a circuit and can provide lock/status modifications, and all are from the same field of endeavor
Regarding claim 2 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to translate and break the circuit between the plug and the receptacle in response to removing the cable-lock unit from the lock port”(lock control module receives a lock status signal from a platform through a communication interface Stoddard[Fig.5/item 510]) , “and wherein the control unit is to determine absence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port in response to break in the electrical connection between the plug and the receptacle” (connection of the connector to a suit able port can be sensed electrically Parker[par.0051])
Regarding claim 3 in view of claim 2, the references combined disclose “wherein the control unit is to operate the computing system in a first mode in response determining the presence of the cable- lock unit in the lock port” (determine presence/detect Parker[Fig.21/item 2102]) , “and wherein the control unit is to operate the computing system in a second mode in response determining the absence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port.”(current state Parker[Fig.21/item 2104]).
Regarding claim 4 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the control unit is to periodically check the circuit between the plug and the receptacle to determine the presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port”(apply detect signals Parker [Fig.21/item 2102]).
Regarding claim 5 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the control unit is to operate the computing system in a secure mode in response determining the presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port”(Secure Powered Latch Parker[Fig.22/item 2212]).
Regarding claim 8, Parker discloses “ A computing system comprising: a control unit(control circuitry unit [Fig.9/item 850]); “a jumper circuit unit coupled to the control unit”( jumper circuit [Fig.8/item 810]); “an internal receptacle electrically coupled to the jumper circuit unit(receptacle is coupled to accessory [Fig.8/item 810]); a lock port(cable lock port [Fig.23/item 2327]) to receive a cable-lock unit to lock the computing system at a location(accessory [Fig.23/item 2352]); “a lock engagement member (13 shows a side cross-sectional view of an illustrative cable lock system of FIG. 12, as stored during non-use, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure [par.0039]) partially disposed within the lock port and movable by the cable-lock unit when the cable-lock unit is received in the lock port” (plug 952 and 954 [Fig.9]); and a plug coupled to the lock engagement member and movable with the lock engagement member, wherein in response to receiving the cable-lock unit in the lock port” ([Fig.9/item 910] completes the circuit).
Parker does not explicitly disclose “the lock engagement member and the plug are to physically translate to cause the plug engage the receptacle to complete a circuit between the plug and the receptacle, in response to completion of the circuit between the plug and the receptacle, the jumper circuit unit is to provide a first signal to the control unit, and in response to receiving the first signal, the control unit is to determine presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port.”
However, Stoddard in an analogous art disclose “the lock engagement member and the plug are to translate to cause the plug engage the receptacle to complete a circuit between the plug and the receptacle, in response to completion of the circuit between the plug and the receptacle, the jumper circuit unit is to provide a first signal to the control unit, and in response to receiving the first signal, the control unit is to determine presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port.”
(Lock/unlock user interface 306 may be configured to provide the user of the platform with a lock/release icon or other suitable interface through which the user may view the current lock status and/or provide a lock status modification request (e.g., a change from lock to unlock or vice versa Stoddard[Col.2/lines 65-Col.3/lines 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Parker’s cable lock system with Stoddard’s cable locking mechanism in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Parker discloses a cable lock system which utilizes a cable lock system, Stoddard additional teaches a locking mechanism which completes a circuit and can provide lock/status modifications, and all are from the same field of endeavor
Regarding claim 9 in view of claim 8, the references combined disclose “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to translate and break the circuit between the plug and the receptacle in response to removing the cable-lock unit from the lock port” (lock control module receives a lock status signal from a platform through a communication interface Stoddard[Fig.5/item 510]) “in response to breaking the circuit between the plug and the receptacle, the jumper circuit unit is to provide a second signal to the control unit and in response to receiving the second signal” The lock control module may control the lock based on a signal received from the platform, for example through a Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface or a wireless interface Stoddard [Col.1/lines 62-65])“the control unit is to determine absence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port” (Cable tamper detection module 408 may be configured to detect a break or cut in the cable 104 which may indicate that the platform has been stolen. In response to this condition, an audible alarm 410 may be set off and/or a wireless signal may be sent to the platform to disable it. In some embodiments, the alarm may be located, either additionally or alternatively, in the platform 112 Stoddard[Col.4/lines 35-40]).
Regarding claim 10 in view of claim 9, the references combined disclose “further comprising an elastic element coupled to the lock engagement member to retract the lock engagement member and plug and break the circuit between the plug and the receptacle” the lock 110 may physically rotate, latch or tighten into lock receiver 114. Locking mechanism driver module 204 may therefore include any type of actuator, motor, solenoid or other type of electrical and/or mechanical mechanism to induce a physical motion or change in orientation of lock 110 (Stoddard[Col.2/lines 42-52]).
Regarding claim 11 in view of claim 9, the references combined disclose “wherein the control unit is to operate the computing system in a first mode in response determining the presence of the cable- lock unit in the lock port” (determine presence/detect Parker[Fig.21/item 2102]), “and wherein the control unit is to operate the computing system in a second mode in response determining the absence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port.” (current state Parker[Fig.21/item 2104]).
Regarding claim 12 in view of claim 8, the references combined disclose “wherein the jumper circuit unit is to periodically check the circuit between the plug and the receptacle” ( jumper circuit [Fig.8/item 810] also see apply signal across cable to detect signal Parker[Fig.19/items 1902&1904]). Regarding claim 14, Parker discloses “a computing system comprising: a control unit (control circuitry unit [Fig.9/item 850]); an internal receptacle electrically coupled to the control unit” (receptacle is coupled to accessory [Fig.8/item 810]); “a lock port to receive a cable-lock unit to lock the computing system at a location” (cable lock port [Fig.23/item 2327]); “a lock engagement member (13 shows a side cross-sectional view of an illustrative cable lock system of FIG. 12, as stored during non-use, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure [par.0039]) partially disposed within the lock port and movable by the cable-lock unit when the cable-lock unit is received in the lock port” (the accessory may include circuitry configured to detect whether it is engaged with the fin box. For example, the accessory may include a switch that is in an opened or closed state depending on whether the accessory is coupled to the fin box. Further, the accessory may electrically couple the two conductors of the cable together only if the accessory is coupled to the fin box [par.0110]); “and a plug coupled to the lock engagement member and movable with the lock engagement member” (plug 952 and 954 [Fig.9]), wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to physically translate in response to receiving the cable-lock unit in the lock port([Fig.9/item 910] completes the circuit).
Parker does not explicitly disclose “wherein such translation causes the plug to engage the receptacle to close an electrical circuit with the control unit, and in response to closure of the electrical circuit, the control unit is to determine presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port and operate the computing system in a first mode in response.”
However, Stoddard in an analogous art discloses “wherein such translation causes the plug to engage the receptacle to close an electrical circuit with the control unit, and in response to closure of the electrical circuit, the control unit is to determine presence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port and operate the computing system in a first mode in response.” (Lock/unlock user interface 306 may be configured to provide the user of the platform with a lock/release icon or other suitable interface through which the user may view the current lock status and/or provide a lock status modification request (e.g., a change from lock to unlock or vice versa Stoddard[Col.2/lines 65-Col.3/lines 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Parker’s cable lock system with Stoddard’s cable locking mechanism in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Parker discloses a cable lock system which utilizes a cable lock system, Stoddard additional teaches a locking mechanism which completes a circuit and can provide lock/status modifications, and all are from the same field of endeavor
Regarding claim 15 in view of claim 14, the references combined disclose “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to translate and break the circuit between the plug and the receptacle in response to removing the cable-lock unit from the lock port to open the electrical circuit with the control unit” (disengage connector Parker[Fig.22/item 2204]) , and the control unit is to determine absence of the cable-lock unit in the lock port and operate the computing system in a second mode, when the electrical circuit is open” (receive unlock/lock indication Parker[Fig.21/item 2106/2112]).
Regarding claim 16 in view of claim 14, the references combined disclose “further comprising a spring member coupled to the lock engagement member(one end of cable 464 may be coupled to a reel with a spring - loaded or ratcheting retractor Parker[par.0059]), “wherein the spring member decompresses to urge the lock engagement member in a direction that causes the electrical circuit between the plug and the receptacle to break in response to removing the cable-lock unit from the lock port.” (one end of cable 464 may be coupled to a reel with a spring - loaded or ratcheting retractor Parker[par.0059
Regarding claim 17 in view of claim 14, the references combined disclose “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to translate to complete the circuit between the plug and the receptacle by causing the plug to slide into the receptacle”( Locking mechanism driver module 204 may be configured to engage, release or otherwise manipulate the lock 110, under the control of communication interface module 202 so as to either secure or free the platform 112 from the cable 104. Any suitable type of physical locking mechanism may be employed. In some embodiments, for example, the lock 110 may physically rotate, latch or tighten into lock receiver 114. Locking mechanism driver module 204 may therefore include any type of actuator, motor, solenoid or other type of electrical and/or mechanical mechanism to induce a physical motion or change in orientation of lock 110 (Stoddard[Col.2/lines 42-52])
Regarding claim 18, in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the lock engagement member is positioned near an opening of the lock port to interact with the cable-lock unit when the cable-lock unit is inserted into the lock port (a connector , a port , or both , include a switch which is configured to change state ( i.e. , throw position ) when the connector and port are engaged Parker[par.0072]).
Regarding claim 19 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the lock engagement member is a movable rod. (Lock Stoddard[Fig.1/item 110])
Regarding claim 20 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the lock engagement member and the plug are to translate to complete the circuit between the plug and the receptacle by causing the plug to slide into the receptacle” ”( Locking mechanism driver module 204 may be configured to engage, release or otherwise manipulate the lock 110, under the control of communication interface module 202 so as to either secure or free the platform 112 from the cable 104. Any suitable type of physical locking mechanism may be employed. In some embodiments, for example, the lock 110 may physically rotate, latch or tighten into lock receiver 114. Locking mechanism driver module 204 may therefore include any type of actuator, motor, solenoid or other type of electrical and/or mechanical mechanism to induce a physical motion or change in orientation of lock 110 (Stoddard[Col.2/lines 42-52]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is 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 MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. 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.
/MICHAEL D ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433