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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 2006/0214914) in view of Barrett et al. (US 2012/0120384), and further in view of Morrison et al. (US 2017/0288340) and further in view of Mizrahi et al. (US 2019/0348806).
Claim 16 will be addressed first as it is the broadest claim.
Regarding claim 16:
Chiang teaches some but not every element of the claim as follows.
Claim 16
Prior Art
16. (Currently Amended) A mouse comprising:
a chassis;
Chiang Fig. 3: 21, 22
a main board;
Chiang Fig. 3: 3; paragraph 26: "circuit board 3"
a receptacle board connected to the main board by only a flexible cable;
Not disclosed by Chiang
a port coupled to the receptacle board,
Chiang discloses a port (Fig. 3, paragraph 26)
the receptacle board having a surface area of substantially only the size of the port and a flexible cable connector;
Not disclosed by Chiang
the main board communicating information with a cable inserted in the port through the flexible cable; and
Not disclosed by Chiang
a sleeve fit around the port and coupled to the chassis, the sleeve flexing relative to the chassis to absorb forces applied by a cable inserted into the port.
Not disclosed by Chiang
So Chiang does not disclose:
(A) "a receptacle board connected to the main board by only a flexible cable;
"a port coupled to the receptacle board,
"the receptacle board having a surface area of substantially only the size of the port and a flexible cable connector;
"the main board communicating information with a cable inserted in the port through the flexible cable;"
(B) "a sleeve fit around the port and coupled to the chassis, the sleeve flexing relative to the chassis to absorb forces applied by a cable inserted into the port."
Regarding (A):
Barrett discloses:
a receptacle board connected to the main board by only a flexible cable (paragraph 47: "receiver and communications circuit board 154"…"supported by the flexible ribbon cables");
the main board communicating information with a cable inserted in the port through the flexible cable (paragraph 47: "supported by the flexible ribbon cable")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Chiang the elements taught by Barrett.
The rationale is as follows:
Chiang and Barrett are directed to the same or related fields of art.
Barrett discloses this protects the board from damaging vibrations (paragraph 47). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Chiang in view of Barrett then discloses:
a port coupled to the receptacle board (follows from the combination -- Chiang connects the cable using a port as already discussed).
Chiang in view of Barrett does not explicitly disclose:
"the receptacle board having a surface area of substantially only the size of the port and a flexible cable connector"
This is probably in and itself obvious, as choosing the appropriate size is certainly within the level of ordinary skill in the art. But just to show that a board of this size is known:
Morrison discloses:
the receptacle board having a surface area of substantially only the size of the port and a flexible cable connector (as shown in, e.g., Fig. 3: this is "substantially only" this size).
It would have been obvious to include in Chiang in view of Barrett the elements taught by Morrison.
The rationale is as follows:
Chiang, Barrett, and Morrison are directed to the same or related fields of art.
Morrison discloses this could be part of a connection to a mouse (paragraph 14). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (B):
Mizrahi discloses:
a sleeve fit around the port and coupled to the chassis, the sleeve flexing relative to the chassis to absorb forces applied by a cable inserted into the port (paragraph 54: "seal/boot 1604" which "may be configured…to flex").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Chiang, etc., the elements taught by Mizrahi.
The rationale is as follows:
Chiang, etc., and Mizrahi are directed to the same or related fields of art.
Mizrahi discloses that this forms a watertight seal. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 18:
Chiang, etc., discloses:
wherein the receptacle board has substantially only the port and flexible cable coupled to it (follows from Morrison, e.g., Fig. 3, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 19:
Chiang, etc., discloses:
wherein the receptacle board fits in the chassis with room to move by flexing of the sleeve without impacting the main board (Mizrahi paragraph 54: “components of the connector mechanism to flex or articulate relative to the electronics section”).
Regarding claim 20:
Chiang, etc., discloses:
wherein the port is a USB Type-C port (Morrison paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 1:
Many elements of this claim have already been discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Chiang, etc., discloses:
a housing (shown in Chiang Fig. 1);
a processor disposed in the housing and operable to execute instruction to process information (follows from paragraph 5: a “computer” has a processor);
a memory disposed in the housing and interfaced with the processor, the memory operable to store the information and instructions (follows from paragraph 5: a “computer” necessarily has a memory);
a mouse interfaced with the processor (as discussed above), the mouse accepting inputs from an end user and communicating the inputs to the processor with a main board (e.g., Chiang paragraph 19).
All other elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 2:
All element positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 4:
Chiang, etc., discloses:
wherein the receptacle board has an area of substantially only the size of the port (Morrison, e.g., Fig. 3, in that the flexible cable doesn’t really take up any area)
Regarding claim 5:
All element positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 6:
Chiang, etc., discloses:
wherein the port is a USB Type-C port (Morrison paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 7:
Chiang, etc., discloses:
a USB Type-C cable inserted into the Type-C port (Morrison, e.g., Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8:
Chiang, etc., discloses:
wherein the sleeve couples the port to align with an opening in the chassis (follows from the combination discussed above, in particular Mizrahi paragraph 54).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, and 14-15:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Barrett, and further in view of Morrison and further in view of Mizrahi, and further in view of Nagamine et al. (US 2005/0003709)
Regarding claim 17:
Chiang, etc., discloses a mouse as discussed above.
Chiang, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein the sleeve comprises a rubberized silicon coupled to the chassis with adhesive.”
Nagamine discloses:
wherein the sleeve comprises a rubberized silicon coupled to the chassis with adhesive (paragraph 41, 88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Chiang, etc., the elements taught by Nagamine.
The rationale is as follows:
Chiang, etc., and Nagamine are directed to the same or related fields of art.
Mizrahi discloses the sleeve is thermoplastic polyurethane (paragraph 54), which is a kind of thermoplastic elastomer. Nagamine discloses the same type of material (paragraph 41) but shows that silicone rubber is preferable for waterproofing a cable (paragraphs 87-88), which is the exact purpose of Mizrahi’s sleeve, and that an adhesive is used with it. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted this material for the one used by Mizrahi with predictable results.
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 11:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument (really beginning the bottom of page 7) is that neither Barrett of Morrison disclose a receptacle board "having a surface area of substantially only the size of the port and the flexible cable connector."
Applicant argues that Barrett's receiver and communication board does not couple only to the transmitter board, but also to the detector board with the jumper and the power board, and that it includes multiple processing components to process the captured signal and transmit the signals to the USB line.
The entirety of Barrett's board isn't being incorporated here. What is taken from Barrett is the mounting arrangement that "enables the boards…to float in the housing compartment 176 and isolate the boards from potentially damaging vibrations" (paragraph 47). The board is "not mounted directly the housing frame or outer shells."
Note that Barrett has a separate board for the processor ("transmitter and processor circuit board 150") so Barrett does have a receptacle board ("receiver and communications circuit board 154") that is connected to a main board ("transmitter and processor circuit board 150") by only a flexible cable ("flexible ribbon cables 160").
The differences between Barrett and the claimed invention is that Barrett's receptacle board doesn't have "a surface area of substantially only the size of the port and the flexible cable connector."
Barrett does not have a port like applicant's at all but instead the board is connected to a USB serial cable 158 via molded strain relief.
But Chiang already has a port. This port is for connecting a USB cable. A direct connection or a port connection are certainly interchangeable in the art. So it seems reasonable to take from Barrett that Chiang's port should be on a receptacle board that floats in the housing compartment in order to protect from vibration.
So then the only difference is the size. Note that a difference in size itself is not generally considered a patentable difference, so this is probably sufficient to show this would have been obvious, but to make it explicitly clear that boards of this size are known in the art, Morrison is relied upon.
Morrison shows a receptacle board having a surface area of substantially only the size of a port and a flexible cable connector (as shown in Fig. 3).
Applicant seems to be arguing here (still page 8) that Morrison doesn't have a flexible cable connector. Morrison does show a wire 306 connected to the processor as per paragraph 19. A wire is a flexible cable. But also it's important to note that Barrett already shows the flexible cable connector ("flexible ribbon cables 160.") These cables are for connecting a USB port (which in Barrett, again is a USB serial cable wired in, but in Chiang is a plug-in port). So Morrison is not really relied upon for teaching the cables themselves, just that the board be substantially the size of these connections.
Applicant goes on to argue that the references do not teach "a port mounted on a board and communicating with a main board through a flexible cable to avoid breaking the board on which the port is mounted," but this exactly the teaching of Barrett. Again, "enables the boards…to float in the housing compartment 176 and isolate the boards from potentially damaging vibrations" (paragraph 47). The board is "not mounted directly the housing frame or outer shells."
So although applicant argues the combination does not "fairly suggest" this, it does appear to follow directly from the references. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622