Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/391,825

SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO DIAGNOSE CONNECTIVITY OF A NON-SOLDERED COMPRESSION USB CONNECTOR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Examiner
PAUMEN, GARY F
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
DELL PRODUCTS, L.P.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1706 granted / 1930 resolved
+20.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -2% lift
Without
With
+-1.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1986
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
66.3%
+26.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1930 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 35 USC 112 Rejections 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 14-20 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. In the preambles of claims 14-18, “A method” is indefinite because there is no recitation of what the method is meant to encompass. It appears that the preambles of claims 19 and 20 are inaccurate since these claims positively recite not only the PCB but also the USB connector. 35 USC 102 Rejections 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 – Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wan et al 7850465. Regarding claim 1, Wan et al (front page) discloses a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connector assembly, comprising: a mounting bracket 10 configured to removably attach to a printed circuit board (PCB); and a plurality of diagnostic contacts 40 disposed at least in part within the mounting bracket, wherein the diagnostic contacts are configured to electrically connect to corresponding ones of a plurality of electrical diagnostic contact pads of the PCB, wherein an individual diagnostic contact of the plurality of diagnostic contacts applies a force to a corresponding one of the electrical diagnostic contact pads of the PCB when the mounting bracket is mated to the PCB, and wherein the diagnostic contacts comprise a conductivity path of a diagnostic circuit when the mounting bracket is mated to the PCB. Note that there appears to be no structural difference between a “contact” and a “diagnostic” contact, and thus the contacts of Wan et al can be considered “diagnostic”. Also note that no portion of the PCB is positively recited, and thus Wan et al is deemed to disclose the positively recited structure. Regarding claim 2, Wan et al discloses the diagnostic contacts 40 are diagnostic surface pads 42. Regarding claim 3, Wan et al discloses the diagnostic surface pads 42 are outer rear standoff diagnostic surface pads. Regarding claim 4, Wan et al discloses the diagnostic contacts 40 are diagnostic leaf-springs. Regarding claim 8, Wan et al discloses the conductivity path of the diagnostic circuit allows for a connectivity determination of the mounting bracket to the PCB. Note that no portion of the PCB is positively recited, and thus Wan et al is deemed to disclose the positively recited structure. Regarding claim 13, Wan et al discloses a locater component 116 configured to self-register the USB connector assembly on the PCB. 35 USC 103 Rejections 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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. It would have been an obvious matter of design to laser-weld the diagnostic leaf- springs 40 of Wan et al to the mounting bracket 10 since laser welding is a widely used means of securing two objects together. Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li 11,764,534. Regarding claims 6 and 7, Li (claim 14 thereof) discloses the USB connector assembly comprises a Type-C compression USB connector assembly, and wherein the diagnostic contacts are outer back row extra diagnostic contacts, at least one of the outer back row extra diagnostic contacts forms a conductivity path with a Type-C ground contact, in the Al or Al2 position, of the Type-C compression USB connector assembly, and to form the USB connector assembly of Wan et al in this way thus would have been obvious, for compatibility with ubiquitous Type-C connectors. Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takata 6866524. Takata (front page) discloses the mounting bracket 10 comprises one or more screw holes 13 to allow one or more screws to removably attach the USB connector assembly to the PCB, and to provide the mounting bracket of Wan et al with screw holes thus would have been obvious, to allow for easy dismounting. Claims Defining Over Prior Art Claims 9-11 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 14-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art discloses or teaches a host USB connector port coupled to the mounting bracket and configured to accept a peripheral USB connector plug; nor the USB connector assembly removably attaches to the PCB without the use of any solder joints; nor removably attaching the USB connector to the PCB using a fastening component, wherein the plurality of spring contacts of the USB connector electrically connect to corresponding ones of the plurality of electrical contact pads of the PCB, wherein the one or more diagnostic contacts electrically connect to the one or more electrical diagnostic contact pads, and wherein the one or more diagnostic contacts comprise a conductivity path of a diagnostic circuit when electrically connected to the one or more electrical diagnostic contact pads; in combination with the rest of the subject matter of the respective independent claim. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY F PAUMEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2013. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th. 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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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. /GARY F PAUMEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603450
CABLE CONNECTOR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597742
ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT AND POWER CORD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597735
LOCK MECHANISM AND CONNECTOR SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597736
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR AND ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR ASSEMBLY HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597723
CONTACT ASSEMBLY HAVING CABLE CONTACTS AND CONNECTOR CONTACTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (-1.7%)
1y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1930 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month