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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 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 is directed to “A method for configuring a 6-in-1 Universal Cable…”. However, the body of the claim does not recite method steps. Instead, the claim recites a list of structural components/features, e.g., “a main cable body”, “a 5 Gbps data transfer (USB 3.0 standard)”, “a first connector side… paired with a USB-A adapter”, and “a second connector side… features a lightning and micro-USB adapter”. Accordingly, it is unclear what process or action must be performed to meet the “method” limitation.
Claim 2 states “wherein said charging means comprises” but claim 1 does not introduce any “charging means”. Therefore, claim 2 lacks antecedent basis and the scope is unclear.
Claim 3 states “a 360-degree rotatable axis, enabling users to switch… quickly”. It is unclear what structure has “axis”, how the rotation is implemented, and what constitutes “quickly”. Therefore, the scope of claim 3 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 5 states “all modern USB devices”. The term “modern” is subjective and does not provide a clear boundary of what devices are included or excluded. The phrase “including smartphones and USB-C laptops” is exemplary and therefore, does not render the scope definite.
Claim 6 states “provides portability and ease of use”. These are subjective, relative results that do not distinctly define the claimed structure. Therefore, the scope is uncertain.
Claim 7 states “a swivel mechanism to change the ports”. It is unclear what structure constitutes the “swivel mechanism”, what “ports” refers to (connectors/adapters?) and what “change” requires. Therefore, the scope is uncertain.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 is directed to a method. However, each of the claims 2-7 is written as an apparatus claim (“The universal charging cable of claim 1”). Accordingly, claims 2-7 do not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and are improper dependent claims.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolling Square inCharge XL (non-patent literature) in view of Amazon Basics (non-patent literature)
Regarding Claim 1 – Rolling Square inCharge XL discloses a 6-in-1 Universal Cable for charging a plurality of devices, comprising: a main cable body (inCharge XL is a multi-connector cable assembly); a first connector side of the USB-C paired with a USB-A adapter for older devices (inCharge XL includes USB-C and USB-A adapter/connectivity) and, a second connector side of the USB-C cable features a lightning and micro-USB adapter (inCharge XL includes Lightning and microusb connectivity).
inCharge XL does not expressly disclose a 5 Gbps data transfer (USB 3.0 standard).
Amazon Basics teaches a USB-C to USB 3.1 (Gen 1) adapter/cable that supports a 5 Gbps data transfer (USB 3.0 standard) (Amazon listing states “Compatible with USB 3.0” and “Fast Charge and Data Transfer: Supports fast charging up to 15W (5V/3A) and data transfer speeds up to 5 Gbps”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the charging cable of Rolling Square inCharge XL with known USB signaling performance of 5 Gbps (USB 3.x) as taught by Amazon Basics because incorporating a known higher speed USB data capability into a universal cable is predictable design choice to provide faster data while maintaining the same multi-connector/adapter functionality as taught by inCharge XL.
Regarding Claim 4 – Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics teaches the universal charging cable of claim 1, wherein the cable is designed to be a keychain accessory, with magnets between the USB-C connectors allowing it to remain closed on the user's keychain (inCharge XL includes magnets at both ends, enabling the connectors to snap together and fold the cable allowing easy keychain attachment for portability while keeping the cable neat and protected).
Regarding Claim 5 – Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics teaches the universal charging cable of claim 1, wherein the cable enables users to charge all modern USB devices, including smartphones and USB-C laptops (inCharge XL includes “universal compatibility” showing different modern devices that include smartphones, laptops, tablets, speakers etc.).
Regarding Claim 6 – Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics teaches the universal charging cable of claim 1, wherein the cable provides portability and ease of use (inCharge XL is configured as a compact keychain cable for convenient portable use).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolling Square inCharge XL (non-patent literature) in view of Amazon Basics (non-patent literature) and in further view of Matsuda (US 6211649 B1)
Regarding Claim 2 – Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics teaches the universal charging cable of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said charging means comprises voltage control means for charging the battery of the external apparatus by using the power supplied from the USB port with a voltage controlled to be a predetermined value.
Matsuda (Fig 2) teaches “Voltage control means… by using the power supplied from the USB port with a voltage controlled to be a predetermined value” and further teaches “a voltage control unit 14 for regulating the USB voltage… to a predetermined voltage”.
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the charging cable of Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics with the known voltage control as taught by Matsuda in order to charge using USB-supplied power with a controlled/predetermined voltage.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolling Square inCharge XL (non-patent literature) in view of Amazon Basics (non-patent literature) and in further view of A.S Magnetic Charging Cable (non-patent literature)
Regarding Claim 3 – Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics teaches the universal charging cable of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the lightning and Micro-USB adapter are provided with a 360-degree rotatable axis, enabling users to switch between all three connectors quickly.
A.S teaches a multi-connector charging cable having multiple connector types and a “rotating magnetic data cable allows the magnet tip to rotate a full 360°” and supports 3 different types of connectors (MicroUSB, iProduct, USB-C).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the charging cable of Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics with a known rotatable axis as taught by A.S Magnetic Charging Cable to facilitate switching/connecting and improve ease of use while maintaining the same universal connector functionality.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolling Square inCharge XL (non-patent literature) in view of Amazon Basics (non-patent literature) and in further view of Liao (US 7066767 B2)
Regarding Claim 7 – Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics teaches the universal charging cable of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a swivel mechanism to change the ports is provided.
Liao teaches a rotatable/swivel connector arrangement that changes among connectors responsive to rotation. Liao (Fig 1; [Detailed Description]) states “The first electrical connector 2 is disposed rotatably on the main body 1” and “a conducting unit electrically coupling the first electrical connector to at least one second electrical connector in selective manner responsive to rotation of the first electrical connector”. Liao further teaches maintaining contact during rotation by a contacting portion “slidably displaceable… responsive to rotation… to maintain electrical connection”.
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the charging cable of Rolling Square inCharge XL in view of Amazon Basics with a known rotatable/swivel connector-selection mechanism of Liao to allow a user change/select among connector ports while maintaining electrical connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/ADITYA SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847