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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lane 4481458.
Regarding claim 1, Lane (Figure 6) discloses an electrical port for receiving a plug connector, the electrical port comprising: a housing 52 including an internal wall 76,78 at least partially defining a cavity 64, the cavity configured to surround at least a portion of the plug connector; a first electrical contact 74 disposed at least partially within the cavity, the first electrical contact coupled to the housing at a first angle oblique to a vertical axis of the housing; and a second electrical contact 68 disposed at least partially within the cavity, the second electrical contact coupled to the housing at a second angle oblique to the first angle and the vertical axis of the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Lane discloses the cavity 64 is configured to receive a plug connector comprising a concave surface 76 and a convex surface 78 opposite the concave surface; and the first angle and the second angle are normal to at least one of the concave surface or the convex surface.
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henry et al 8460018.
Henry et al (Figure 3) discloses a bumper 320 configured to supply an ejection force to a plug connector, and to provide Lane with such a bumper thus would have been obvious, to facilitate plug ejection.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heidecker et al 8939735.
Heidecker et al (front page) discloses a seal 100 coupled to the internal wall of the housing 80 adjacent an opening of the cavity, the seal encircling at least a portion of the cavity; and to provide Lane with same thus would have been obvious, to prevent ingress of contaminants and inherently configured to supply an ejection force to a plug connector inserted into the cavity.
Claim(s) 5, 7-15, 19, 23-26, 28, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buck et al 7125270.
Regarding claim 5, Buck et al (Figure 6) discloses an engagement feature comprising a
latch 156,176 positioned to extend through an opening in a lateral portion of the internal wall of the housing when the latch is in an engaged configuration, and to provide Lane with same thus would have been obvious, to secure to a mating plug connector.
Regarding claim 7, Buck et al discloses the latch 156,176 is configured to interlock with a groove of the plug connector. Note that the plug connector is not positively recited and thus Buck et al is deemed to disclose the positively recited latch structure.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been an obvious matter of design to form the latch taper 184 of Buck et al at an angle in a range from 0 degrees to 10 degrees as this would not substantially affect the function thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Lane discloses the cavity 64 is configured to receive a plug connector comprising a concave surface, a convex surface opposite the concave surface, and a side surface extending between the concave surface and the convex surface. Lane (as modified by Buck et al) discloses the latch as noted above.
Regarding claim 10, cavity 64 of Lane comprises a guide groove 84. It would have been an obvious reversal of parts to replace the guide groove with a guide rail, to be received in a guide groove of the plug connector.
Regarding claims 11, Lane discloses a receptacle connector for a head-mountable display (HMD) comprising: a cavity configured to receive a plug connector as noted above. Lane (as modified by Buck et al above) discloses a latch extending at least partially into the cavity, the latch configured to transition between an engaged configuration and an un-engaged configuration, the latch configured to retain the plug connector in the cavity when the latch is in the engaged configuration. Buck et al (Figure 4A) discloses a spring 90,92 coupled to the latch 30 and configured to retain the latch in the engaged configuration; and a lever arm 56,76 coupled to the spring and configured to transition the latch to the un-engaged configuration in response to pressure from a tool (buttons 52,72), and to provide Lane with a spring coupled to a latch, and a lever arm, thus would have been obvious, to better secure to the plug connector.
Regarding claims 12-15, Lane (as modified by Buck et al) discloses the latch is configured to extend into a groove defined by a boot of the plug connector; the latch is configured to extend into the groove defined in a lateral side surface of the plug connector; and the lateral side surface is adjacent to a longitudinal side surface of the plug connector, the latch is configured to extend into a groove defined by a plug of the plug connector, the latch is configured to extend into the groove defined in a lateral side surface of the plug connector; and the lateral side surface is adjacent to a longitudinal side surface of the plug connector. Note that the plug connector is not positively recited and thus Lane (as modified by Buck et al) is deemed to disclose the positively recited structure.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitations are not directed to positively recited structure, and thus the applied art is deemed to disclose the positively recited structure.
Regarding claims 23-26, 28, 31 and 32, the references are applied as above.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane in view of Buck et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Heidecker et al (applied as above).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane in view of Buck et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Henry et al (applied as above).
Claims Defining Over Prior Art
Claims 6, 20-22, 27 and 30 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 33-45 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 push block coupled to the spring and the latch; nor a seal mounted on the lever arm; nor the first and second lever arm protrusions on opposite sides of a latch protrusion; nor the second spring configured to interact with a protrusion of the lever arm; nor the first, second and third protrusions as recited; nor a HMD with the first plug connector being configured to be removed from the first receptacle connector by a pull force, and the second plug connector being configured to be removed from the second receptacle connector by a force of a tool applied to a lever arm of the second receptacle connector; 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