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
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,481,458 (“Lane”) in view of common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Lane discloses:
A receptacle connector (FIG. 6; socket 64; see col. 4, ll. 53-56), comprising:
a receptacle housing having a convex wall portion (78), a concave wall portion (76), a first side wall portion (80) that extends between the convex wall portion and the concave wall portion, and a second side wall portion (82) that extends between the convex wall portion and the concave wall portion, wherein the convex wall portion, the concave wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion at least partially define a cavity (col. 4, ll. 53-56; socket 64 constitutes “a cavity”) having an open end (as shown in FIG 6);
pin contacts (68, 70, 72, 74) located in the cavity of the receptacle housing (as shown); and
a retainer having a first side latch (FIG. 7:92) configured to extend into the cavity in an engaged position (as shown by FIG. 7, spring detent 92 is biased to extend into the socket 64, and when engaged with the power pack, at least the tip of the detent continues to extend inwardly into the socket) and to move outward from the cavity to a disengaged position (when the power pack is inserted, but detent 92 is not fully engaged, it is forward outward relative to the cavity by the power pack until it may engage with the dimple 94 on the power pack; thus, the outward motion constitutes a “disengaged” position of spring detent 92).
Lane does not explicitly disclose the inclusion of a secondary latch. As noted above, however, Lane does contemplate a first latch. Thus, the difference between the instant claim and the prior art is a matter of duplicating the first latch and the first dimple and positioning them such that the duplicated latch (i.e., “the second latch”) may engage with the duplicated dimple (“the second dimple”) in a similar manner to the first latch and dimple.
The courts have previously held that, even when a reference does not disclose a plurality of an element, “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B), citing to In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960). Here, provision of a secondary latch and dimple on a side of the power pack opposite the first latch and dimple would have the obvious and expected result of creating a more balanced and secure connection between the power pack and the socket, better ensuring that the power pack cannot inadvertently fall out of or be removed from the socket.
As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Lane to further include a second latch and dimple on an opposite side of the power pack (as seen from FIG. 7) for the purposes of creating a more balanced and secure connection between the power pack and the socket, better ensuring that the power pack cannot inadvertently fall out of or be removed from the socket.
Regarding claim 2, Lane in view of common knowledge (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first side latch being configured to extend into the cavity through a first latch opening in the first side wall portion of the receptacle housing in the engaged position (inherent; as shown by FIG. 7, spring detent 92 is formed in an opening in sidewall 80; moreover, as can be seen in the precise position depicted in FIG. 7, the detent 92 extends into the cavity away from the wall; in order to function properly, there must be an inherent opening within side wall 80 at the position of the detent 92 in order for the detent 92 to move outwardly from the socket when the power pack is inserted in order for the power pack to be fully inserted within the socket; thus, there must inherently be “a first latch opening in the first side wall portion of the receptacle housing” and the detent 92 of Lane must be “configured to extend into the cavity through” said first latch opening) and the second side latch is configured to extend through a second latch opening in the second side wall portion of the receptacle housing in the engaged position (inherent result of the duplication of parts as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Lane further discloses the retainer including a spring that urges the first side latch and the second side latch toward the engaged position (spring detent 92 may be reasonably construed as “a spring” because it utilizes spring forces; as spring detent 92 is biased inwardly toward the socket 64, it may also be reasonably interpreted as “urging” the latch toward the engaged position).
Regarding claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first side latch and the second side latch being configured for engagement with a corresponding plug connector (FIG. 7, power pack) to retain the corresponding plug connector in the cavity of the receptacle housing (col. 5, ll. 5-11).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane in view of U.S. Patent 6,193,539 (“Chang”).
Regarding claim 1, Lane discloses:
A receptacle connector (FIG. 6; socket 64; see col. 4, ll. 53-56), comprising:
a receptacle housing having a convex wall portion (78), a concave wall portion (76), a first side wall portion (80) that extends between the convex wall portion and the concave wall portion, and a second side wall portion (82) that extends between the convex wall portion and the concave wall portion, wherein the convex wall portion, the concave wall portion, the first side wall portion, and the second side wall portion at least partially define a cavity (col. 4, ll. 53-56; socket 64 constitutes “a cavity”) having an open end (as shown in FIG 6);
pin contacts (68, 70, 72, 74) located in the cavity of the receptacle housing (as shown); and
a retainer having a first side latch (FIG. 7:92) configured to extend into the cavity in an engaged position (as shown by FIG. 7, spring detent 92 is biased to extend into the socket 64, and when engaged with the power pack, at least the tip of the detent continues to extend inwardly into the socket) and to move outward from the cavity to a disengaged position (when the power pack is inserted, but detent 92 is not fully engaged, it is forward outward relative to the cavity by the power pack until it may engage with the dimple 94 on the power pack; thus, the outward motion constitutes a “disengaged” position of spring detent 92).
Lane does not explicitly disclose the inclusion of a second latch. Moreover, one of ordinary skill might recognize and appreciate that the latching mechanism of Lane merely requires one to forcibly pull the power pack from the socket to remove the power pack. As the securing feature of the latch is the spring detent, those of ordinary skill would recognize and appreciate that, over time, this mechanism may be prone to inelastic deformation that ultimately causes the spring force to be insufficient to retain the power pack within the socket. Seeking to obviate or otherwise overcome this potential issue, one of ordinary skill would seek an alternative latching system that can better guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the latching mechanism.
Chang discloses a receptacle (e.g., FIGS 8-10, socket body 10) having a cavity (unlabeled portion configured to receive plug 30, as shown) including a retention mechanism comprising a first and second side latch (swinging rods, 12) configured to extend into the cavity (inherent; as the swinging rods 12 engage with holes 32 in pins 31, the swinging rods must “extend into the cavity”) in an engaged position (see FIG 9) and to move outward from the cavity to a disengaged position (see FIG 8). The latching mechanism of Chang holds the plug in place until a button 171 is pressed, ensuring that the plug cannot fall out (see, e.g., col. 1, ll. 7-12). This differs from the latching mechanism of Lane, where the plug can be removed simply by pulling on the plug. Moreover, the provision of plural latches on either side of the plug provides for symmetrical application of retention force, as well as providing a layer of redundancy since one of the swing arms may fail while the other continues to function.
One of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) would have found it obvious to modify Lane to utilize a latching system like the one in Chang, swapping out the spring detents with a swinging rod configuration that engages with holes or dimples in the inserted plug, for the purposes of providing a more secure connection that cannot be inadvertently disconnected.
Regarding claim 2, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Lane further discloses the first side latch being configured to extend into the cavity through a first latch opening in the first side wall portion of the receptacle housing in the engaged position (inherent; as shown by FIG. 7, spring detent 92 is formed in an opening in sidewall 80; moreover, as can be seen in the precise position depicted in FIG. 7, the detent 92 extends into the cavity away from the wall; in order to function properly, there must be an inherent opening within side wall 80 at the position of the detent 92 in order for the detent 92 to move outwardly from the socket when the power pack is inserted in order for the power pack to be fully inserted within the socket; thus, there must inherently be “a first latch opening in the first side wall portion of the receptacle housing” and the detent 92 of Lane must be “configured to extend into the cavity through” said first latch opening) and the second side latch is configured to extend through a second latch opening in the second side wall portion of the receptacle housing in the engaged position (inherent result of the duplication of parts as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above).
When modified as proposed by claim 1, the spring detent 92 of Lane would be replaced with a swinging rod as taught by Chang; additionally a second swinging rod would be provided on the opposing side wall relative to the first swinging arm. Thus, when properly considered as a combination of references, the second combination discloses each and every limitation of instant claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lane in view of Chang (“the second combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Chang further discloses the retainer including a release (button 171) that is operable to cause movement of the first side latch and the second side latch of the retainer between the engaged position and the disengaged position (see FIGS 8-10).
Regarding claim 6, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Chang further discloses a push block (23, 121) that is in engagement with the first side latch and the second side latch (as shown by FIGS 8-10), and movement of the push block with respect to the first and second side latches causes movement of the latches between the engaged and disengaged positions (as shown by FIGS 8-10), and the push block has a first contact surface (FIG 8, left instance of element 121) that is in engagement with the first side latch (left instance of element 12) and a second contact surface (right instance of element 121) that is in engagement with the second side latch (right instance of element 12), and the first contact surface and the second contact surface are angled relative to a movement axis of the push block (elements 121 do not move parallel to the movement axis of the push block and, thus, may be reasonably interpreted as being “angled” relative to said movement axis).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant effectively recites a receptacle connector incorporating the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 5. As discussed above, the second combination discloses each and every limitation of these claims. As such, Examiner finds that the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and Lane further discloses the pin contacts each being oriented according to a curvature of the first wall portion (see FIG 6).
Regarding claim 9, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and further discloses each of the pin contacts being configured to deflect along a respective line of action (col. 5, ll. 32-36) that is normal to a curvature of the first curved wall portion at each of the pin contacts (inherent; as shown by FIG 6, the pins are positioned along the curvature of the curved wall, thus the deflection of the pins must be normal to the curvature at the portion of the wall which the pin passes through, otherwise the pin would deflect into the wall rather than passing through as disclosed by Lane).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Applicant merely provides an arbitrary designation of the “first curved wall” as either being convex (claim 11) or concave (claim 12), and arbitrarily designates that “second curved wall” as either being concave (claim 11) or convex (claim 12). As Applicant is doing nothing more than arbitrarily naming the convex and concave walls “first” or “second” without any specific reasoning, Examiner finds that the convex and concave walls of Lane may also be arbitrarily designated as “first” or “second.” Thus, the second combination, particularly Lane, discloses the limitations of claims 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 14, the second combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and further discloses the receptacle housing having an end wall portion (Lane, FIG 6:90) that at least partially defines the cavity (see FIG 6, where wall 90 defines a depth of the cavity) and is spaced from the open end of the cavity (as shown) in a depth direction of the receptacle housing (as shown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13 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.
Claims 15-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the limitations of the indicated claims.
With respect to claim 10, the prior art does not disclose three groups of two or more pins, wherein the first group of pins is positioned between the second and third groups, wherein the second group of pins is oriented outward relative to the first group, and wherein the third group is oriented outward relative to the first group. While Lane discloses a plurality of pins that may be arbitrarily divided into groups, each group would not have two or more pins. Moreover, there is no clear motivation to provide additional pins to Lane such that three groups might be formed. Thus, claim 10 distinguishes over the prior art of record and the subject matter thereof would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (claim 7) and any intervening claims (none).
With respect to claim 13, the prior art does not disclose a second group of pin contacts located along the second curved wall of the receptacle. Lane discloses only one set of pins. There is no clear motivation to provide additional pins to Lane on the opposing curved wall as recited by claim 13. Thus, claim 13 distinguishes over the prior art of record and the subject matter thereof would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (claim 7) and any intervening claims (none).
With respect to claim 15, the prior art does not disclose the second pin contacts as recited by the claim. As with claim 13, there is no clear motivation to provide additional pins to Lane on the opposing curved wall in the configuration as recited by claim 15. Thus, claim 15 distinguishes over the prior art of record. Claims 16-17 depend from claim 15 and are allowable for at least the same reason.
With respect to claim 18, the prior art does not disclose a plug having second contact pads spaced along a concave wall portion of the connector body as recited by the claim. As shown by Lane, the plug therein only contains contact pads on the convex wall portion of the connector body. Similarly to the second set of pins in claims 13 and 15, there is no clear motivation to provide additional contact pads to Lane on the concave wall portion of the connector body of the plug connector. Thus, claim 18 distinguishes over the prior art of record. Claims 19-21 depend from claim 18 and are allowable for at least the same reason.
With respect to claim 22, the prior art does not disclose a headband comprising a first plug connector having a first convex wall portion, a first concave wall portion, and first connector pads that are located on at least one of the first convex wall portion or the first concave wall portion; a second plug connector having a second convex wall portion, a second concave wall portion, and second connector pads that are located on at least one of the second convex wall portion or the second concave wall portion; and an intermediate portion that extends between the first plug connector and the second plug connector.
The closest art of record is U.S. Patent 8,540,363 (“Abreu”). As may be seen, for example, in FIG 1C, Abreu discloses a headband (20) with first (28) and second (32) plug connectors and an intermediate portion (12, 18, 22) that extends between the connectors. The connectors, however, do not have the convex and concave walls as recited by claim 22. Thus, claim 22 distinguishes over the prior art of record. Claims 23-24 depend from claim 22 and are allowable for at least the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834