Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
In regards to claim 1, 9 and 17, the applicant argues that Yasuoka et al. (US-8,512,048), which was part of the rejection, teaches away from sensing three dimensional coupling quality because the Yasuoka’s connectors use support elements 4a, 4b,18 and 19 [see applicant’s arguments pg. 9 L. 17-20].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The fact that a reference teaches one way to do a function does not mean that the reference teaches away from doing the function in other ways. For a reference to teach away from doing a function in a certain way, the reference must explicitly recite that the function cannot be performed in that way. The Yasuoka reference does not explicitly recite that alignment of the connector cannot be performed in three dimensional way using magnets. Therefore, the Yasuoka reference does not teach away from detecting alignment with magnates in a three dimensional way. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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) 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong et al. (US-11,791,591) in view of Yasuoka et al. (US-8,512,048) and Hernandez (US-12,070,612).
In regards to claim 1, Fong teaches a method for coupling a magnetic USB-C connector to a device by using magnets that permit easy coupling between the connector and the device [fig. 1 elements 24, 28, 106 and 108, col. 3 L. 39-42, L. 47-49 and L. 64-66].
Fong does not teach that the method comprises measuring, with at least one sensor, indications of magnetic coupling properties of a connector with respect to a device.
On the other hand, Yasuoka teaches that a port of a device, which uses magnets to receive a corresponding connector, can comprise a magnetic sensor for measuring indications of magnetic coupling properties of a connector with respect to the device [col. 8 L. 44-47]. Also, Yasuoka teaches that the measured indications are used to determine if the connector and the port of the device are coupled at a correct or incorrect position/orientation (coupling quality) [col. 8 L. 47-53 and L. 58-67, col. 9 L. 1-4]. These teachings means that the method comprises measuring, with at least one sensor, indications of magnetic coupling properties of the connector with respect to the device and receiving the indications from the sensor and processing the indications to determine a coupling quality of a connection between the connector and the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Yasuoka’s teachings of sensing the magnetic field to determine if the connector is properly connected in the method taught by Fong because it will permit the device to know when the connector has been properly connected and be able to use the connection only when the connector has been properly connected.
The combination of Fong and Yasuoka teaches that the device can determine the coupling quality of the connection between the connector and the device [see Yasuoka col. 8 L. 44-47 and L. 64-67 and L. 1-7]. Also, the combination teaches that the device comprises a user interface [see Fong fig. 1 element 10, see Yasuoka fig. 1 element 2, col. 2 L. 38-40]. However, the combination does not teach that the coupling quality is determined with respect to angle, skew and distance of the connection, and that the method comprises providing a user alert on the user interface.
On the other hand, Hernandez teaches a method to determine a coupling quality between two devices be measuring indications of magnetic coupling properties between the devices [col. 5 L. 48-57]. Also, Hernandez teaches that the system determines, using the indication of magnetic coupling properties, the coupling quality in three dimensions in order to determine if the two devices are aligned at the correct distance, angle and orientation [col. 5 L. 50-53, col. 14 L. 8-19, col. 15 L. 25-37, col. 16 L. 54-60, col. 17 L. 17-29]. This teaching means that the method comprises receiving the indications from the sensor and processing the indications to determine a three dimensional coupling quality with respect to angle, skew and distance of a connection between the devices. Also, Hernandez teaches that the method comprises providing a user alert on a user interface based at least on the coupling quality of the connection falling below a threshold quality level [fig. 7A-D, col. 14 L. 57-63, col. 15 L. 25-37 and L. 47-59, col. 16 L. 4-10 and L. 63-67, col. 17 L. 1-2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hernandez’s teachings of determining the coupling quality in three dimensions and providing alerts on the user interface in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to determine alignment between the connector and the device without the need of using additional support elements at the device or connector, to let the user know when the coupling quality is not proper and to provide the user with instructions that will permit the user correct the coupling quality.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the system determines, using the indication of magnetic coupling properties, the coupling quality in three dimensions in order to determine if the connector and the device are aligned at the correct distance, angle and orientation [see Yasuoka col. 8 L. 58-67, col. 9 L. 1-7, see Hernandez col. 5 L. 50-53, col. 14 L. 8-19, col. 15 L. 25-37, col. 16 L. 54-60, col. 17 L. 17-29]. This teaching means that the indications of the magnetic coupling properties comprise the angle, the skew and the distance relative to a preferred orientation between the connector and the device.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the coupling quality comprises a first coupling quality indicating the connector and the device exhibit proper alignment and proper connection distance, wherein the strength of the magnetic field satisfies a target coupling distance and a target angle and a target planar skew of the connection satisfies a target relative orientation [see Hernandez fig. 7A-D, fig. 8A-D, col. 5 L. 50-53, col. 15 L. 25-37, col. 16 L. 1-10 and L. 56-60]. Also, the combination teaches that the coupling quality comprises a second coupling quality indicating the connector and the device exhibit improper alignment and proper connection distance, wherein the strength of the magnetic field satisfies the target coupling distance and the target angle and the target planar skew of the connection does not satisfy the target relative orientation [see Hernandez see Hernandez fig. 7A-D, fig. 8A-D, col. 5 L. 50-53, col. 15 L. 25-37, col. 16 L. 1-10 and L. 56-60]. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the coupling quality comprises a third coupling quality indicating the connector and the device exhibit proper alignment and improper connection distance, wherein the strength of the magnetic field does not satisfy the target coupling distance and the target angle and the target planar skew of the connection satisfies the target relative orientation [see Hernandez fig. 7A-D, fig. 8A-D, col. 5 L. 50-53, col. 15 L. 25-37, col. 16 L. 1-10 and L. 56-60]. The combination further teaches that the coupling quality comprises a fourth coupling quality indicating the connector and the device are unconnected, wherein the strength of the magnetic field does not satisfy the target coupling distance and the target angle and the target planar skew of the connection does not satisfy the target relative orientation [see Hernandez fig. 7A-D, fig. 8A-D, col. 5 L. 50-53, col. 15 L. 25-37, col. 16 L. 1-10 and L. 56-60].
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that providing the user alert comprises presenting a visual or audible notification through the user interface of the device having different instructions/indications that permits the connector and the device to align with respect to distance, angle and skew (for each level of the coupling quality [see Hernandez fig. 7A-7D, fig. 8 L. A-E, col. 16 L. 1-10 and L. 63-67, col. 17 L. 1-43].
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the user alert comprises a user instruction based on the level of coupling quality indicating user action to improve the coupling quality [see Hernandez fig. 7A-7D, fig. 8 L. A-E, col. 16 L. 1-10 and L. 63-67, col. 17 L. 1-43].
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the connector conforms to a Universal Serial Bus Type-C (USB-C) connection standard [see Fong col. 3 L. 47-49].
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that a physical linkage between the connector and the device is achieved by a magnetically-formed coupling connection [see Fong col. 3 L. 39-42 and L. 64-66].
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a method performing the functions of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed apparatus [see Yasuoka col. 8 L. 44-47 (sensing circuitry), col. 8 L. 62-64 (processing circuitry), see Hernandez col. 8 L. 56-59 (sensing circuitry), col. 9 L. 30-37 (processing circuitry)].
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 9 above, further teaches that the sensing circuitry comprises one or more Hall sensors [see Hernandez col. 9 L. 63-67, col. 10 L. 1].
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 and 9 above, teaches the claimed apparatus. Also, the combination teaches that the apparatus performs the e functions using a processing system coupled with one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that based on being read and executed by the processing system direct the processing system to perform the claimed functions [see Hernandez col. 9 L. 30-37].
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 and 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong et al. (US-11,791,591) in view of Yasuoka et al. (US-8,512,048) and Hernandez (US-12,070,612) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of An et al (US-10,145,888).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka and Hernandez, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach obtaining indications of electrical connection properties of the connector with respect to the device.
On the other hand, An teaches that a connection failure can be determined based on the detection that no current flow exists between joints of the connectors [col. 18 L. 55-63, col. 29 L. 29-35]. This teaching means that the method comprises obtaining indications of electrical connection properties of the connector with respect to the device, wherein determining the coupling quality of the connection between the connector and the device is further based on the indications of the electrical connection properties of the electrical connections within the connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use An’s teachings of monitoring electrical connection properties in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to know when a connection failure exists between the connectors.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Fong, Yasuoka, Hernandez and An, as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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 LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688