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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following problem.
An orthographic projection area of one of the contacts is not identified with an assigned reference number and a line pointing at the orthographic projection area. Therefore, it is not clear what the orthographic projection area is.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-30, 32 and 38-39 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.
The original specification does not describe following limitations.
The bidirectional electrical connection socket being in a first operational state as recited in claim 16.
“the contact combinations of the USB 2.0 contact interfaces are symmetrically aligned in the top-bottom direction” as recited in claim 18.
“An orthographic projection area of one of the contacts on one of the connection surfaces does not completely overlap with that of any one of the contacts on the other one of the connection surfaces” as recited in claim 20.
the contact combinations of the contact interfaces being aligned in the top-bottom direction as recited in claim 26.
The bidirectional electrical connection socket being in a first operational state and a second operational state as recited in claim 32.
“One of the left and the right sides of the tongue has a single contact combination comprising a ground contact and a power contact, and the ground contact is adjacent to the power contact” as recited in claim 38.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the top and bottom sides of the connection surfaces" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, line 2 recites, “a connection plug”, but claim 2, lines 14 and 16 also recite, “a connection plug”. Therefore, it is not clear whether these three connection plugs are the same plug or three different plugs.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the portion of the tongue" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is depended on claim 9 and claim 13, lines 1-2 recite, “a portion of the tongue”. Therefore, it is not clear whether “the portion” of claim 9 and “a portion” of claim 13 are the same portion of the tongue or two different portions of the tongue.
Claim 16, lines 2 and 5 recite, “a first operational state”. However, claim 2 also recites, “a first operational state”. Therefore, it is not clear whether two “a first operational state” of claims 2 and 16 are the same first operational state or two different operational states. Also, claims 3-15 and 17-19 do not recite other operational states such as second, third, fourth operational states and so on. If there are not other operational states, the examiner suggests the applicant to change “a first operational state” to just -- an operational state --.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the top and bottom sides of the connection surfaces" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20, lines 11-12 recite, “an orthographic projection area of one of the contacts”, which is not described in the original specification. Therefore, it is not clear what or where “an orthographic projection area” is
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the portion of the tongue" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22, lines 3, 7 and 10 also recite, “an orthographic projection area”. Therefore, it is not clear whether “an orthographic projection area” recited in both claims 20 and 22 are the same element or two different elements.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the top-bottom direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26, lines 5 and 7 recite, “a connection plug”, but claim 20, line 2 also recites, “a connection plug”. Therefore, it is not clear whether “a connection plug” of claims 20 and 26 the same element or two different elements.
Claim 28, lines 4-7 also recite, “a connection plug”, which has the same problem as “a connection plug” recited in claim 26, lines 5 and 7.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the top and bottom sides of the connection surfaces" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the top-bottom direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the top and bottom sides of the connection surfaces" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38, line 14 recites, “an orthographic projection area of the contacts”, which is not described in the original specification. Therefore, it is not clear what or where “an orthographic projection area” is.
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)(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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0015561 A1).
Tsai discloses a bidirectional electrical connection socket adapted for bidirectionally connecting to a connection plug 90, comprising: a tongue 20, having an upper and a lower connection surfaces (not labeled, see Figs. 6-8), wherein each of the upper and lower connection surfaces has a contact interface, and each of the contact interfaces has a plurality of contacts 44 formed on a plurality of terminals 40; an insulating base 10, having an end connected to the tongue 20; and a housing 30, covering the tongue 20 and forming a connection slot 31, wherein the tongue 20 is disposed at the middle height (see Fig. 5) of the connection slot 31, and symmetrical spaces f are formed on the top and bottom sides of the connection surfaces, respectively; wherein each contact interface comprises a USB 2.0 contact interface specified by the USB Association (see Paragraph [0075]), wherein when the bidirectional electrical connection socket is in a first operational state (see Figs. 6-8), the USB 2.0 contact interface in only one of the contact interfaces establishes an electrical connection with the connection plug 90, and when the bidirectional electrical connection socket is in a second operational state (see Figs. 9-11), the USB 2.0 contact interface in each contact interface establishes an electrical connection with the connection plug 90.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US Patent Application Publication No. (US 2012/0015561 A1) in view of Ju et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0244111 A1) and Tsai (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/3335193 A1).
Regarding claims 3-39, Tsai ‘561 only discloses the universal serial bus (USB) plug 90 and socket being associated with the USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 specifications (see Paragraphs [0005], [0012] and [0075]). Also, Tsai ‘561 only discloses the bidirectional socket comprising two rows of terminals 40, each row of terminals having 4 contacts, wherein a first row of the terminals 40 are on a top side of the tongue 20 and a second row of the terminals 40 are on a bottom side of the tongue 20.
Therefore, Tsai ‘561 does not disclose different sizes of socket and different numbers and arrangement of the terminals of the socket as recited in claims 3-19.
On the other hand, it is now a common knowledge that various USB plugs and sockets specification such as USB 1.0, USB 2.0, USB 3.0, Mini USB, MICRO USB, USB-A, USB-B, and USB-C, are well-known and widely used by many electrical devices. Also, it is well-known that these different types of USB connectors having different shape of bodies/housings, different size of bodies/housings, different number of terminals, and different arrangement of the terminals.
Ju discloses a bidirectional electrical connection socket comprising USP-C socket comprising two rows of terminals 2, each row having twelve contacts 21.
Tsai ‘193 discloses bidirectional electrical connection plug and socket comprising USB 3.0 specification and two rows of terminals, each row having four to nine terminals.
Tsai ‘561, Ju and Tsai ‘193, all three disclose three USB connectors, each USB connector having different shapes, different sizes and different number of terminals in different arrangements.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the socket taught by Tsai ‘561 such that it would have shapes, sizes and numbers of terminals in specific arrangements as taught by the instant invention, Ju or Tsai ‘193 because USB socket can have many different specification sockets with different shapes, different sizes and different number of terminals in different arrangements.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAE MOON HYEON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/hmh/
/Hae Moon Hyeon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights