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 .
Drawings
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 “second accessory” must be shown or the 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 abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure 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 be renumbered and appropriate changes made to 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 Interpretation
The examiner has interpreted the claim term “debride” to mean scrape clean.
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 1-7, 9-13, 15-18 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.
The preamble of claim 1, “An accessory port comprising…” is misleading. The preamble only recites the “accessory port” yet the body of the claim recites components external to the port. The examiner will interpret the preamble to read something like –an accessory port system--.
Claims 13, 15-18 recites the limitation "a second accessory" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See drawing objection above.
Is there a first accessory? Is the “accessory” recited in the preamble the first accessory, if so then the “second accessory” does not agree with the preamble since the first accessory comprises the second?
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Eling et al (US10266131).
An accessory port (“USB port 222”, “USB interface module 220”) comprising:
a contact positioned on an exterior vehicle surface (fig. 2 & col. 10 ll 60-61) configured to electrically couple with an accessory (col. 7 ll 46-49 OR fig. 2 at 200, 202, 204) to transfer power to the accessory (fig. 1 & claim 4); and
a processor (“processor 212”) configured to authenticate the accessory (“authentication module 230”).
Claim 7 Eling discloses the accessory port of claim 1, further comprising a connector on the exterior vehicle surface configured to physically couple (fig. 2) with the accessory.
Claim 9 Eling discloses the accessory port of claim 1, wherein the processor (212 fig. 2) is further configured to control electrical the power transferred to the accessory via the contact (Abstract last sentence; col. 1 ll 39-47).
Claim 11 Eling discloses the accessory port of claim 1, wherein the contact is flush with the exterior vehicle surface (fig. 2).
Claim 13 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lydon et al (US20100075604).
An accessory comprising:
a connector (fig. 1A Connector 108) configured to physically couple (Connector 110) with an accessory port (Accessory 114) on an exterior vehicle surface (0055, 0061 “in-vehicle entertainment system”);
a first contact (111) configured to electrically couple with the accessory port (Port B 315 fig. 3) and transfer power (0065 “power line 512 and/or communication bus 514 can be provided to authentication controller 500 via a connector, such as connector 108”) from the accessory port; and
a second contact (unnumbered fig. 3 between Port A & 180) configured to transfer power and/or data with (authentication data) a second accessory (fig. 3 Authentication controller 180).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2-3 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eling et al (US10266131) in view of previously cited Labell et al (US20220055491).
Eling does not disclose a cover that adjusts between a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein in the first configuration, the cover encloses the contact, and wherein in the second configuration, the cover exposes the contact.
Labell discloses an accessory port (fig. 4) with a cover (“port cover 246”) that adjusts between a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein in the first configuration, the cover encloses the contact (fig. 13), and wherein in the second configuration, the cover exposes the contact (fig. 14). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to include an open and close cover as taught by Labell with the port system of Eling. A motivation for this is very well understood and would be to protect the working parts of the port from environmental factors. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 3 Labell discloses a cover (246) that adjusts between a first configuration (fig. 13) and a second configuration (fig. 14) when the accessory port physically couples with the accessory.
Claims 4 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eling et al (US10266131) in view of previously cited Cretin (US20230191926).
Eling does not disclose a cover that automatically adjusts from a first configuration to a second configuration upon detecting the accessory, and wherein the cover automatically adjusts from the second configuration to the first configuration upon detecting the accessory decoupling from the accessory port.
Cretin discloses a cover (14, 14a) that automatically adjusts from a first configuration (fig. 4A) to a second configuration (fig. 4B) upon detecting the accessory, and wherein the cover automatically adjusts from the second configuration to the first configuration upon detecting the accessory decoupling from the accessory port (0054 “cover panel 14 may automatically pivot back toward the closed / stowed positions”; 0056 “charging connector pivots or moves outwardly (such as via automatic movement responsive to detection of the user’s hand or an authorized user’s hand at or near the cover panel)”).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to include an auto open and close cover as taught by Cretin with the port system of Eling. A motivation for this is very well understood and would be to provide convenience when trying to mate the components. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eling et al (US10266131) in view of Yamamaru et al (US20150191093).
Eling does not disclose that the exterior vehicle surface is an inclined surface, and wherein the accessory port further comprises a drain positioned below the contact.
Yamamaru discloses an exterior vehicle surface is an inclined surface (fig. 3), and wherein the accessory port further comprises a drain positioned below the contact (fig. 7A at 68e). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to include a drain system as taught by Yamamaru with the accessory port of Eling. A motivation for this would be to drain off condensation that may occur near electrical components. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 6 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eling et al (US10266131).
Eling does not specify that the contact comprises an electrically-conductive material that is corrosion or wear resistant.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill to manufacture the contact of Eling from electrically-conductive material that is corrosion or wear resistant. A motivation for this contact material selection would be to permit the contact to last longer. Well settled case law has shown that merely selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for its intended use is not grounds for a patent, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 10 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eling et al (US10266131) in view of Pawlowski (US20220402436).
Eling does not disclose a seal between the accessory and the accessory port while the accessory is physically coupled to the accessory port.
Pawlowski discloses (claim 10) a seal between an accessory and an accessory port while the accessory is physically coupled to the accessory port. At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to design a seal as taught by Pawlowski between the accessory and an accessory port as taught by Eling. A motivation for this is taught by Pawlowski and would be to cut down on rattling and shaking. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eling et al (US10266131) in view of Lydon et al (US20100075604).
Eling does not disclose a mechanical indicator configured to provide an indication when the accessory is physically coupled to the accessory port.
Lydon discloses a mechanical indicator configured to provide an indication when the accessory is physically coupled to the accessory port (claim 1 “an indication that the accessory is coupled with a first port of the mobile computing device”). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to provide a mechanical indication as taught by Lydon to show that the accessory and port have mated properly. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 15 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydon et al (US20100075604) in view of Cotton et al (US 7175481).
Lydon does not disclose that the first contact is configured to debride a surface of a contact on the accessory port while the accessory is physically coupling to the accessory port.
Cotton discloses scraping clean or debriding a contact while being inserted into a port (col. 4 ll 2-5). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the electrical connector art to use the debriding concept as taught by Cotton with the contact mating of Lydon. A motivation for this would be to ensure interference free communication in high dirt environments. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique (debriding or scraping clean) to a known device (contacts mating with ports) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 16 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lydon et al (US20100075604) in view of Cotton et al (US 7175481).
Lydon does not disclose that the connector is configured to debride a surface of a contact on the accessory port while the accessory is physically coupling to the accessory port.
Cotton discloses scraping clean or debriding a connector while being inserted into a port (col. 4 ll 2-5). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the electrical connector art to use the debriding concept as taught by Cotton with the contact mating of Lydon. A motivation for this would be to ensure interference free communication in high dirt environments. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique (debriding or scraping clean) to a known device (contacts mating with ports) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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 C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658.
Prosecution Insights