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(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 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 3, “the deepening . . .” lacks antecedent basis and is ambiguous as to what it refers to. The limitation is given little weight.
Regarding claims 5, 8, 9, and 10, the limitations of “comprises one: . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; or . . . .” are indefinite. The limitations are ambiguous as to whether all the elements prior to the “or” are being claimed as one alternative element or each of the elements prior to the “or” are each alternatives. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of “a second protective cover . . .” is indefinite because neither a first nor second protective cover is positively claimed. The limitation is given little weight.
Regarding claim 17, limitation of “the second connector plug portion . . .” lacks antecedent and is ambiguous as to what it refers to. The limitation is given little weight.
IMPROPER MARKUSH GROUPING
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush groupings of claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 15 are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use. The alternatives are have no structural similarities and have different functions.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. US 10381778 (“Ishida”).
Regarding claim 1 and 3, Ishida discloses a combined connector plug 2 (plug 2 is a male connector, col. 4, lines 45-55) for a connection between (i.e., capable of making a connection between) a towing vehicle and a trailer, comprising:
a first connector plug portion 55B (labeled CPP1 below) configured to connect a first connector socket 72B portion and to provide (i.e. capable of providing) a first power supply and low-speed communication (col. 4, lines 1-5, note that the terms “low-speed” and “high speed” are purely relative terms and do not require any absolute values of communication rates) link between the towing vehicle and the trailer; and
a second connector plug portion 55C (labeled CPP2 below) configured to connect a second connector socket portion and to provide (i.e. capable of providing) a second power supply and a high-speed (i.e., a speed higher than a lower speed) communication link between the towing vehicle and the trailer, the high-speed communication link providing a transmission rate that is higher than for the low-speed communication link (note that the transmission rate is determined by a signal transmitter; plug portion 55B is inherently capable of transmitting a signal having a higher or lower rate than a signal transmitted through plug portion 55C,
wherein the first connector plug portion 55B is configured to connect the first connector socket portion even when the second connector plug portion 55C is not connected to the second connector socket portion (e.g. when then mating connector does not include a section 72C.
PNG
media_image1.png
1224
1026
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 4, the first connector plug portion 55B comprises one or more of:
a first plug body with a front end (labeled FE1 above) and a rear end (labeled RE1, see e.g. figure 3) . . . .
Per claim 5 the first connector plug portion comprises one or more of: 2
a first plug body with a front end and a rear end . . . .
Per claim 6 the first connector plug portion and the second connector plug portion are spaced from each other, and each comprise a separate moisture protection (hoods 53 of each portion 55B and 55C) to enable a connection of the first connector plug portion with a cable that comprises only a first connector socket portion.
Per claim 7 and 17, Ishida discloses a combined connector socket (3, socket 3 is a female connector, col. 4, lines 45-55) for a connection between (i.e., capable of making a connection between) a towing vehicle and a trailer, comprising:
a first connector socket portion (72B, labeled CSP1 below) configured to connect a first connector plug portion and to provide a first power supply and low-speed communication link (col. 4, lines 1-5, note that the terms “low-speed” and “high speed” are purely relative terms and do not require any absolute values of communication rates) between the towing vehicle and the trailer; and
a second connector socket portion 72C (labeled CSP2 below) configured to connect a second connector plug portion and to provide a second power supply and a high-speed communication link (i.e., a speed higher than a lower speed) between the towing vehicle and the trailer, the high-speed communication link providing a transmission rate that is higher than the low-speed communication link (note that the transmission rate is determined by a signal transmitter; portion 72B is inherently capable of transmitting a signal having a higher or lower rate than a signal transmitted through portion 72C)
wherein the first connector socket portion is inherently configured to connect the first connector plug portion even when the second connector socket portion is not connected to the second connector plug portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
1243
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 8, the first connector socket portion comprises one or more of:
a first socket body with a front end (labeled FE1 above) and a rear end . . . .
Per claim 9, the second connector socket portion comprises one or more of:
a second socket body with a front end (labeled FE2 above) and a rear end . . . .
Per claim 10, the second connector socket portion comprises one or more of:
a second socket body with a front end and a rear end.
Per claim 13 and 14, Ishida discloses a combined plug-socket connector system for connecting (i.e., capable of connecting) a towing vehicle with a trailer, the combined plug-socket connector system comprising:
(i) a combined connector plug 2 for a connection between the towing vehicle and the trailer, comprising:
a first connector plug portion 55B configured to connect a first connector socket portion and to provide a first power supply and low-speed communication link between the towing vehicle and the trailer; and
a second connector plug portion 55C configured to connect a second connector socket portion and to provide a second power supply and a high-speed communication link between the towing vehicle and the trailer, the high-speed communication link providing a transmission rate that is higher than for the low-speed communication link,
wherein the first connector plug portion is configured to connect (i.e. capable of connecting) the first connector socket portion even when the second connector plug portion is not connected to the second connector socket portion; and
(ii) a combined connector socket 3 for a connection between the towing vehicle and the
trailer, comprising:
a first connector socket portion 72B configured to connect a first connector plug portion and to provide a first power supply and low-speed communication link between the towing vehicle and the trailer; and
a second connector socket portion 72C configured to connect a second connector plug portion and to provide a second power supply and a high-speed communication link between the towing vehicle and the trailer, the high-speed communication link providing a transmission rate that is higher than the low-speed communication link,
wherein the first connector socket portion is configured to connect the first connector plug portion even when the second connector socket portion is not connected to the second connector plug portion.
Regarding claim 15, Ishida discloses a second receiving surface on the rear of the second plug body.
Per claim 16, the second connector plug portion includes a second plug body having a front end (labeled FE2 above) and a rear end (labeled RE2 above) and
a first receiving surface (labeled RS1) on the front end of the second plug body to allow a protective cover to cover the first receiving surface on the front end of the second plug body, the protective cover being a cover of a socket which has only a first connector socket portion.
Per claim 19, the second connector plug portion includes a second plug body having a front end and a rear end, and a first receiving surface on the front end of the second plug body to allow a protective cover to cover the first receiving surface on the front end of the second plug body, the protective cover being a cover of a socket which has only a first connector socket portion.
Claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leigh et al. US 10741963 (“Leigh”)
Regarding claims 11, Leigh discloses a connector cable, comprising:
a cable (plural cables 104 secured by elements 110 are considered to be a “cable”) with a plurality of lines and/or wires;
a combined connector plug (plural conjoined connectors 106 form a combined connector plug) arranged at each end of the cable to enable a connection between a towing vehicle and a trailer, wherein each combined connector plug comprises:
a first connector plug portion (one or more of connectors 106, labeled CPP1 below) configured to connect a first connector socket portion and to provide a first power supply (inherently, any wire of the assembly is capable of transmitting power or signal) and low-speed communication link between the towing vehicle and the trailer; and
a second connector plug portion (remaining second connectors 106, labeled CPP2 below) configured to connect a second connector socket portion and to provide a second power supply and a high-speed communication link between the towing vehicle and the trailer, the high-speed communication link providing a transmission rate that is higher than for the low-speed communication link (note that any connector 106 is inherently capable of providing a lower or higher transmission rate than another connector 106),
wherein the first connector plug portion is configured to connect the first connector socket portion even when the second connector plug portion is not connected to the second connector socket portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
852
1006
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 12, the plurality of lines or wires, in order to provide the high-speed communication link, include one or more of:
a shielded wire, a shielded twisted pair, a coaxial cable, or a twin-axial cable. See figure 4B showing a pair of twin axial cables in each connector 106.
Per claim 18, the second connector plug portion includes a second plug body having a front end (labeled FE2 above) and a rear end (labeled RE2), and
a first receiving surface (labeled RS1) on the front end of the second plug body to allow a protective cover to cover the first receiving surface on the front end of the second plug body, the protective cover being a cover of a socket which has only a first connector socket portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered.
As an initial matter, the examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). MPEP section 2114(I).
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP section 2114(II).
Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971) (“[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art”). MPEP section 2114(IV).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Ishida does not disclose a first and second power supply. No power supply is claimed.
Applicant argues that Ishida does not disclose communication links. The Ishida device inherently is capable of “providing” a communication link as set out in the claims.
Applicant argues that Ishida does not disclose the claimed functionality. The examiner maintains that Ishida does. The Ishida device is inherently capable of providing the claimed functionality. The Ishida terminals are inherently capable of conducting electricity at some level of voltage at some level of current, i.e., providing some level of power. Any electrical transmission through a given terminal can function as a "signal," i.e., a transmission of information. The Ishida device is inherently capable of transmitting signals at differing speeds, including a first speed higher or lower than a second speed.
Applicant’s arguments seem to be based on a supposed requirement that the device be capable of transmitting some unknown arbitrary level of power and/or some unknown arbitrary rate or type of signal. No such requirement is present in the claim.
Applicant argues that Ishida does not disclose claimed elements. All the claimed elements have been identified in the rejection above.
The same response applies arguments regarding Leigh.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights