DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, a power connector as claimed including that “the plug connector and the panel mount connector are configured such that when the plug connector is fully mated with the panel mount connector i) the minimum lateral force needed to laterally unmate the plug connector from the panel mount connector is X pounds (lbs)” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The disclosure includes is no written description of mating connectors capable of being “laterally unmated.” “Lateral” defined as noted below, Google definition, citing Oxford definition.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
1112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore “lateral unmating” means unmating by moving the connector in the side direction or toward the side, as opposed by unmating by moving the connector along the “axial direction” which applicant recites as “axially unmate” in claim 1.
Applicant’s figure 9 is annotated below for explanation purposes. The “lateral” direction is labeled “LAT.” The “axial” direction is labeled “AXIAL.” Clearly, it is impossible to unmate applicant’s connector laterally because the movement of the connector laterally is blocked by the inner walls (labeled IW below) of the panel mount connector.
PNG
media_image2.png
1214
956
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s disclosure describes a connector which can be rotated to a limited extent during unmating, as the connectors are moved apart axially. This rotational and axial motion during unmating cannot reasonably be described as being “lateral” unmating. To “laterally unmate” cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean a combination of axial movement and limited relative rotational movement.
Note that the claim does not fail the test for enablement because connectors both laterally unmateable, i.e. by movement in the side direction, and axially unmateable, i.e., by movement in an axial direction, are known in the prior art.
For purposes of analysis, the claimed invention, of connector that is both laterally unmateable and axially unmateable, is examined.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of “a plug connector configured to mate with the panel mount connector, wherein the plug connector and the panel mount connector are configured such that when the plug connector is fully mated with the panel mount connector i) the minimum lateral force needed to laterally unmate the plug connector from the panel mount connector is X pounds (lbs) and ii) the minimum axial force needed to axially unmate the plug connector from the panel mount connector is Y pounds (lbs), X<Y” is indefinite.
Firstly as noted above, there is no disclosure of any mating connectors that are capable of being laterally unmated. What applicant appears to be calling “laterally unmating” is an axial unmating that permits a limited amount of relative rotation of the connectors during unmating. What connectors would or would not be considered to be “laterally unmateable” under this unreasonable apparent meaning is entirely unknown.
Secondly given the connectors as disclosed (which are not laterally unmateable), the claim’s requirement of comparison of forces is indefinite because the equation is only met when the unmating force is applied at specific locations on the plug connector and inherently cannot be met when the unmating force is applied at other locations.
As noted in annotated figures 1 and 9, below, an unmating axial force could be applied anywhere along the plug connector 602 (see e.g. force vectors labeled FA1-FA3). Likewise, unmating lateral forces could be applied anywhere on the plug connector (see e.g. force vectors labeled FL1-FL3). Clearly and inherently, a lateral force at arrow FL3 of any magnitude would not result in the unmating of the connectors. Likewise a lateral force at arrow FL2 of any magnitude, applied at the “pivot point” 901, would not result in the unmating of the connectors.
A lateral force of any magnitude at arrow FL1 would be unlikely to unmate the connectors. Even assuming that the connectors did unmate (note the unmating would not be a “lateral unmating”), the required lateral force at FL1 would inherently be more than the axial force required to unmate the connector if the axial distance from the point of application of FL1 to the pivot point is less than the distance from the effective location of the retaining/magnetic force to the pivot point.
In other words, as labeled in annotated figure 9 below, when distance LA2 (the distance from the pivot PIV1 to the point of application of the lateral unmating force) is less than distance LA1 (the distance from the pivot PIV1 to the effective location of the magnetic force), the lateral force to unmate (labeled FLUM) cannot be less than the attractive force of the magnet FM. Also note that the required axial force to unmate (labeled FAUM) applied at the same position is inherently less than the magnetic force FM because a second class lever would be formed with the pivot PIV2.
PNG
media_image3.png
914
896
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1222
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1244
868
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, applicant’s comparative requirement that X<Y is indefinite because as disclosed, the equation is only true when particular locations for the forces on the connector are selected and the equation is untrue when other locations are selected. The scope of the claim is indefinite because whether the equation is met or not depends on an arbitrary and undisclosed selection of locations of force on the connector.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perry US 7726973 in view of Yen US 9362664. Regarding claim 1, Perry discloses a magnetic breakaway power connector, comprising:
a panel mount connector 20; and
a plug connector (30, 40) configured to mate with the panel mount connector, wherein
the plug connector and the panel mount connector are configured such that when the plug connector is fully mated with the panel mount connector i) the minimum lateral force needed to laterally unmate the plug connector from the panel mount connector is X pounds (labeled FM below) and ii) the minimum axial force needed to axially unmate the plug connector from the panel mount connector is Y pounds (lbs),
X<Y,
the panel mount connector comprises a magnet 21, and
the plug connector comprises magnet 41.
Perry does not disclose a ferromagnetic face plate configured to engage with the magnet 21.
Yen discloses a ferromagnetic face plate 141 configured to engage with magnet 241 (col. 3, lines 15-30).
It would have been obvious to replace the Perry plug magnet 41 with a magnetic face plate as taught in Yen. The reason would have been, for example, to reduce cost. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Note that any lateral unmating force, labeled F1, F2, and F3 below, required to “laterally unmate” the plug (30, 40) from the socket 20 is inherently less than the attractive force of the magnet FM because the magnetic attractive force between the magnet 21 and faceplate/magnet 41 is aligned in the direction of the shortest distance between the magnet and faceplate and the connector is being moved across this direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
698
918
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are allowable. Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not disclose the connector as claimed including all of the female power contacts, the first and second recess as set out, and the grooves as set out. Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not disclose the connector as claimed including all of the outer wall, slanted surface, male power contacts, and specific height of the inner and outer walls, and the specific lead in geometry as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834