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 .
This office action is responsive to the reply filed 08/31/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 and 15-16 in the reply filed on 08/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 09/28/2023 and 08/31/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, substitute “de-vice” with – device – (see line 7).
Regarding claim 4, substitute “con-tact” with – contact – (see line 3).
Regarding claim 6, substitute “con-cave” with – concave – (see line 5).
Regarding claim 15, substitute “vice versa” with – wherein the first docking element is a docking socket and the second docking element is a docking port integrated into the electronic device – (see line 5).
Regarding claim 15, substitute “it” with -- the electronic device – (see line 8).
The claims (claim 8) are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein if the first docking element docks to the second docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second surface of the first docking element" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the first docking element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second surface of the second docking element" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the second docking element.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the second docking element is a docking socket” (see line 6). Is the docking socket an additional docking socket or the same docking socket mentioned in line 4?
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a geometry adapted to swivel the concave recess around a pivot if the second docking element docks to the first docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the misalignment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the lowest area" in line 8 and “the topmost area” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 is directed to a first docking element, according to the preamble; however, the claimed features are directed to a docking assembly comprising a first docking element and a second docking element which renders the claim indefinite because the claim as drafted creates ambiguity regarding which device/element the claim intends to cover.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein if the first docking element docks to the second docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a second surface of the first docking element" in line 4 of page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the first docking element.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a second surface of the second docking element" in line 5 of page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the second docking element.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “if the first docking element docked to the second docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a second surface of the first docking element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the first docking element.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a second surface of the second docking element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the second docking element.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “if the first docking element docks to the second docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “if the second docking element docks to the first docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lowest point" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “if the first docking element docks to the second docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 10 is directed to a second docking element, according to the preamble; however, the claimed features are directed to a docking assembly comprising a first docking element and a second docking element which renders the claim indefinite because the claim as drafted creates ambiguity regarding which device/element the claim intends to cover.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein if the first docking element docks to the second docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a second surface of the first docking element" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the first docking element.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a second surface of the second docking element" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the second docking element.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second surface" in line 1 of page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the topmost point" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “if the second docking element docks to the first docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the pose" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “if the first docking element docks to the second docking element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim language makes the docking feature optional which renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a second surface of the first docking element" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the first docking element.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a second surface of the second docking element" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first surface of the second docking element.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asahara (US 11,322,957).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 10: Asahara discloses a docking assembly, comprising:
a first docking element (41) and a second docking element (42),
wherein if the first docking element (41) docks to the second docking element (42),
a concave recess of the first docking element (41) positively fits into a convex protrusion of the second docking element (42) in a direction of a center axis of the concave recess (see figs. 15 and 16),
at least one electrical contact part (41b) integrated into a concave surface (41i) of the concave recess electrically connects to at least one electrical contact part (42b) integrated into a convex surface of the convex protrusion (see figs. 15 and 16),
a bottom surface (41j) of the first docking element is separated from the concave surface (41i) by means of a rim encircling the concave recess, and positively fits to a second surface of the second docking element (42) in a direction of the center axis (see figs. 15 and 16),
at least one electrical contact part (41m, 41n, 41o) integrated into the bottom surface (41j) of the first docking element electrically connects to at least one electrical contact part (42l, 42m, 42n) integrated into the bottom surface of the second docking element (42). (See col. 15, line 5 to col. 16, line 55)
Regarding claim 2, Asahara discloses wherein the first docking element is a docking port comprising a power supply and is configured to charge the battery of the electronic device when a docking socket is docked to the docking port (see col. 17, line 65 to col. 18, line 19).
Regarding claim 4, Asahara further discloses wherein the at least one electrical contact part of the concave surface and the electrical contact part of the convex surface are power electric contacts, and/or the at least one electrical contact part of the second surface of the first docking element and the at least one electrical contact part of the second surface of the second docking element are ground contacts (see col. 17, line 47 to col. 18, line 19).
Regarding claim 9, Asahara further discloses a center electric contact part (41b) integrated at a lowest point of the concave surface (41i), the center electric contact part is adapted to connect to a second electric contact part (42b) of the second docking element, if the first docking element docks to the second docking element (see figs. 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 11, Asahara further discloses at least four electrical contact parts (42b) integrated into the second surface of the second docking element (42).
Regarding claim 12, Asahara further discloses a center electric contact part (42b) integrated at a topmost point of the convex surface, the center electric contact part is adapted to connect to a center electric contact part (41b) of the first docking element, if the first docking element docks to the second docking element (see figs. 15 and 16).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunger et al. (US 10,252,962) (hereinafter “Dunger”).
Dunger discloses a method for docking a first docking element to a second docking element for charging a battery of an electronic device, wherein the first docking element is a docking port and the second docking element is a docking socket integrated into the electronic device, the method comprising: detecting the docking port with a camera of the electronic device, estimating a position of the electronic device such that the electronic device docks with the docking socket to the docking port, and controlling the electronic device to adopt to the position for docking with the docking socket to the docking port (see fig. 3; and col. 12, lines 22-29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 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, STEVEN S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights