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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on December 18, 2025 for patent application 18/052,396 filed on November 3, 2022.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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, and if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,974,410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim while the one or more flanges are received in the one or more circumferential slots, rotation of the external connector causes the one or more flanges to slide within the one or more circumferential slots into a retained position of the external connector, in which conductors of the external connector, having a fixed disposition relative to the one or more flanges, are connected to the conductors.
Instant case:
7. (Original) The electronic device claim 5, wherein the enclosure further defines a recess from the external surface, the recess having one or more circumferential slots that extend to the opening formed in the external surface and that receive one or more flanges of the external connector, and wherein, while the one or more flanges are received in the one or more circumferential slots, rotation of the external connector causes the one or more flanges to slide within the one or more circumferential slots into a retained position of the external connector, in which a second plurality of conductors of the external connector, having a fixed disposition relative to the one or more flanges, are connected to the first plurality of conductors.
8. (Original) The electronic device of claim 7, wherein the second plurality of conductors are in a linear disposition, wherein the first plurality of conductors includes one or more arcuate conductors that connect to a corresponding one or more of the second plurality of conductors for a range of rotational positions of the external connector including the retained position.
9. (Original) The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the first plurality of conductors is in a concentric disposition.
10. (Original) The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the first plurality of conductors comprises a central conductor and a plurality of arcuate conductors.
Patent No. 11,974,410
1. An electronic device comprising: an enclosure that defines an internal volume, a plurality of external surfaces, and a recess from an external surface of the plurality of external surfaces, the recess having one or more circumferential slots that extend to the external surface and that receive one or more flanges of an external connector; one or more electronic components disposed in the internal volume; and a connector interface connected with the one or more electronic components, the connector interface comprising one or more first conductors that are exposed at the recess, wherein, while the one or more flanges are received in the one or more circumferential slots, rotation of the external connector causes the one or more flanges to slide within the one or more circumferential slots into a retained position of the external connector, in which one or more second conductors of the external connector, having a fixed disposition relative to the one or more flanges, are connected to the one or more first conductors, wherein the one or more second conductors comprise a plurality of second conductors in a linear disposition, wherein the one or more first conductors include one or more arcuate conductors that connect to a corresponding one or more of the plurality of second conductors for a range of rotational positions of the external connector including the retained position.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0034826) in view of McWethy (Pub. No.: US 2017/0199799) and Suryadi et al. (Pat. No.: US 12,432,540).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an electronic device comprising: an enclosure that defines an internal volume and a plurality of external surfaces (Fig. 1, element 12, paras. [0019]-[0026]); a connector interface comprising a first plurality of conductors that are exposed at an external surface of the plurality of external surfaces, or through an opening formed in the external surface, wherein the electronic device supports the connection of any one of a plurality of different types of external devices to the connector interface (Fig. 1, element 22, para. [0025]); a memory disposed in the internal volume (Fig. 1, element 28, para. [0023]); and one or more computer processors disposed in the internal volume (Fig. 1, element 16, para. [0020]) and configured to: receive a signal, when one of the plurality of different types of external devices is currently connected to the connector interface, at a first conductor of the first plurality of conductors, wherein the signal distinguishes which one of the plurality of different types of external devices is currently connected to the connector interface (Figs. 5 and 6, para. [0044]); access, based on the received signal, a data structure in a storage of the memory that identifies at least one of a plurality of different communication protocols to use based on which one of the plurality of different types of external devices is currently connected to the connector interface according to the received signal (para. [0099]).
It could be argued that Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more computer processors disposed in the internal volume is configured to assign one or more second conductors of the first plurality of conductors to communicate according to the at least one identified communication protocol, wherein the one or more second conductors are operated differently when different ones of the plurality of communication protocols are used. However, in analogous art, McWethy discloses a “universal smart connection pad allows a slave device, such as a mobile electronic device, to be conveniently connected to a host device, such as a computer. Orientation of a connector of the slave upon the pad may be assisted by magnetization. Through the pad, the host may provide services needed by the slave, such as power and communication. The host may adapt the connection to accommodate changing needs of the slave (para. [0005]),” wherein the host may receive “a request from the slave through the pad specifying a change in communication needs of the slave device (claim 17),” and the host may transmit “to the slave through the pad a change in communication assignments of adapter pins (claim 17),” wherein “the change assigns more adapter pins to some communication task (claim 18).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more computer processors disposed in the internal volume to be configured to assign one or more second conductors of the plurality of conductors to communicate according to the at least one identified communication protocol, wherein the one or more second conductors are operated differently when different ones of the plurality of communication protocols are used. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the device to properly accommodate a wide range of different devices.
The combination of Chen and McWethy does not explicitly disclose wherein the computer processor is configured to access, based on the received signal, a data structure in a storage of the memory that identifies at least one sensor application type based on which one of the plurality of different types of external devices is currently connected to the connector interface according to the received signal, nor process further signals encoding sensor data that are received at the one or more second conductors according to the at least one identified sensor application type. However, in analogous art, Suryadi discloses using modular sensors to augment tag devices, by “[r]ecognizing the sensors attached on the Tag device or other devices, and detecting its capabilities (col. 4, ln. 19-20),” while “the disclosure may utilize modular sensor stack to trigger emergency alert, by: Identifying and registering the types of sensor modules attached on the Tag device or other devices[;] Initiating Emergency mode when a trigger is received, such as a pressed button[;] Sending START command to trigger data acquisition and encoding from sensor module[;] Starting data acquisition to process and encode the data according to the type of sensors[;] Sending STOP command to stop data acquisition once the data is sufficient (col. 4, ln. 29-40).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and McWethy to allow for the computer processor to be configured to access, based on the received signal, a data structure in a storage of the memory that identifies at least one sensor application type based on which one of the plurality of different types of external devices is currently connected to the connector interface according to the received signal, and process further signals encoding sensor data that are received at the one or more second conductors according to the at least one identified sensor application type. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would enhance the identification process of Chen by allowing sensors to also be identified, which could increase the functionality of, and potentially increase user satisfaction with, the system of Chen.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen, McWethy and Suryadi discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to: retrieve, from the storage, one or more drivers for the at least one identified communication protocol; and enable the one or more drivers to communicate with the external device using the one or more second conductors (Chen, para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen, McWethy and Suryadi discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to perform processing of the received signal, and wherein accessing the data structure comprises performing a lookup in the data structure using a result of the processing (Chen, Fig. 7, paras. [0062] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chen, McWethy and Suryadi discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the data structure comprises: at least a first record that identifies a single protocol to use based on a value of a signal characteristic field for the received signal; and at least a second record that identifies multiple protocols to use based on the value of the signal characteristic field (Chen, Fig. 8, paras. [0071]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen, McWethy and Suryadi discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one sensor application type includes one or more of: a temperature application type, a vibration application type, an atmospheric pressure application type, a break-beam application type, and a humidity application type (Suryadi, col. 13, ln. 22-51; Accelerometers measure vibrations. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0034826) in view of McWethy (Pub. No.: US 2017/0199799), Suryadi et al. (Pat. No.: US 12,432,540) and Tu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0179603).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen, McWethy and Suryadi discloses the electronic device of claim 3, but it could be argued that Chen, McWethy and Suryadi do not explicitly disclose wherein the processing comprises measuring a voltage of the received signal. However, in analogous art, Tu discloses “identifying an attached device as a USB typed or an MHL typed device by turning on a switch connected to a differential data pin and measuring a voltage level at the differential data pin, wherein a conductive path is formed from a voltage-supply node, through a resistor-detecting module and the switch, to the differential data pin when the switch is turned on, wherein the attached device is a USB typed device when the voltage level at the differential data pin is less than a pre-defined voltage level and the device is an MHL typed device if the voltage level at the differential data pin is not less than the pre-defined voltage level (para. [0007]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, McWethy and Suryadi to allow for the processing to comprise measuring a voltage of the received signal. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known device identifying technique to be utilized.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0034826) in view of McWethy (Pub. No.: US 2017/0199799), Suryadi et al. (Pat. No.: US 12,432,540) and Jeong et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0002079).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen, McWethy and Suryadi discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but it could be argued that Chen, McWethy and Suryadi do not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the signal from the external device is responsive to an external connector of the external device being connected to the connector interface. However, in analogous art, Jeong discloses that “there is provided a mobile terminal for controlling charging, including a connection unit configured to connect with a charger via a cable; a controller configured to, upon detecting a connection to the charger, apply a voltage to the charger, to transmit a signal for requesting charging to the charger, and to switch to a charging mode; and a power supply unit configured to charge power received from the charger according to the charging mode (para. [0014]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, McWethy and Suryadi to allow for receiving the signal from the external device is responsive to an external connector of the external device being connected to the connector interface. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to operate in a well-known fashion; i.e. allow for signals to be sent once a physical connection is made.
Regarding claim 6, the combination as stated above discloses the electronic device of claim 5, and further discloses wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to: supply, responsive to the external connector being connected to the connector interface, electrical power to the external device using one or more third conductors of the first plurality of conductors (Jeong, Fig. 3, para. [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for dedicated conductors to supply power. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 7-10, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 7-10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 11 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Suryadi.
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are rejected. Claims 7-10 are objected to. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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). 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 Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 February 3, 2026