DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Independent claims 1, and 11, and their dependents thereof are allowed because the prior art either alone or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of:
For claim 1:
“ and when the second connector is connected to the first connector, the first processor: reads out information about the element from the first circuitry to identify the type of the second housing; and communicates with the second circuitry via, among the plurality of second terminals, one or more second terminals connected to the one or more modules used for the type identified, and does not communicate with the second circuitry via a second terminal other than the one or more second terminals.
For Claim 11:
“ and when the second connector is connected to the first connector, the first processor: reads out information about the element from the first circuitry to identify the type of the predetermined electronic device; and communicates with the second circuitry via, among the plurality of second terminals, one or more second terminals connected to the one or more modules used for the type identified, and does not communicate with the second circuitry via a second terminal other than the one or more second terminals.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US20230061469) hereinafter Kim.
As to claim 12, Kim discloses an electronic device (Fig.2 and module 200, para. 0061) that is provided to a moving body and connectable to a predetermined electronic device that is provided to the moving body (coupled to a predetermined device via module 207 to external device 420, para. 0080), the electronic device comprising: first circuitry including an element for identifying a type of the electronic device (Fig. 4 with ID circuit 416, para. 0082); and second circuitry including one or more modules among a plurality of modules having different functions (Fig. 4, where module 420 comprises modules such as a charger or a battery pack, para. 0086), wherein when the electronic device is connected to the predetermined electronic device, the first circuitry provides information about the element to the predetermined electronic device (Fig. 416 identifies 420, para. 0082).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US12099423, US6523073, and US11556163 among others teach the coupling of electronic devices with multiple modules, but do not teach the novelty of the present application of recognizing a specific second element type and subsequently connecting to a sub module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3625. The examiner can normally be reached 7 - 3:30 pm.
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, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached at 571 2724176. 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.
/C.A.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/STEVEN G SNYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights