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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the information disclosure statements 01/16/2025, which information has been considered and entered into the application
The information disclosure statements received have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. See the attached forms PTO-1449.
The numerous references and materials listed on the submitted 14 sheets of the IDS's make it difficult to determine whether or not any of the references, or parts of the references, are material to applicants' claimed invention. It is noted that applicants, in their several IDS submissions, do not indicate any particular reference or parts of references which they deem "material" to the patentability of the pending claims under 37 CFR 1.56(b).
Applicants are reminded of the standard set forth in the leading inequitable conduct case of J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 223 USPQ 1089 (Nov. 9, 1984), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 73 (1985): Where none of the prior art cited during prosecution teaches a key element of the claim(s) and where a reference known to the applicants) does, the applicants) should know that reference is material. Thus, if applicants are aware of any cited reference from among the information disclosure(s) of 01/16/2025 that are "material," applicants should make that reference known to the examiner.
It is also noted that a "misrepresentation is material if it makes it impossible for the Patent Office fairly to assess [the patent] application against the prevailing statutory criteria." In re Multidistrict-Litig. Involving Forst Patent, 540 F.2d 601, 604, 191 USPQ 241, 243 (3d Cir. 1976); see also Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 456 F.2d 592, 600, 172 USPQ 323, 329 (3d Cir.), ce.rt. denied, 40'7 U.S. 934, 174 USPQ 129 (1972). And, the submission of voluminous documents in the instant information disclosure statements (here, in excess of 80 documents) make it difficult, and likely impossible, for the Patent Office to fairly assess applicants' application against the prevailing statutory criteria.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 5: “the at least one detachable receptacle” should be corrected to - -at least one detachable receptacle- -;
Claim 13, line 9: insert “the” before “at least one detachable receptacle”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 13-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muzslay (US 5,735,697).
Regarding claim 1: Muzslay teaches a medical device (e.g. the limitations of a medical device are not given patentable weight due to being in the preamble and is only considered intended use; see Fig. 1) configured to receive at least one plug 32 (see Fig. 1), wherein the medical device comprises: a circuit board 14 comprising a plurality of pins 36 mounted onto a surface of the circuit board (see Figs. 1-4); a housing 20, 30 configured to enclose said circuit board 14 such that the plurality of pins 36 are exposed through at least one slot 16 (see Fig. 1) and wherein a circumferential periphery of the at least one slot 16 is defined by said housing (see Fig. 1); at least one receptacle 12 configured to receive each of the plurality of pins 36 through a first end and further configured to receive the at least one plug 32 through a second end opposing the first end such that (see Fig. 1), upon insertion into the at least one receptacle, the at least one plug 32 is electrically coupled to the plurality of pins 36 (see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 44-49); and at least one connecting member 102 configured to physically attach to the at least one receptacle and physically attach to at least one of the circuit board or the housing (see Figs. 1 and 6 and Col. 4, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 3: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the receptacle 12 is configured to be removable from the at least one slot solely by detaching the at least one connecting member 102 from the circuit board or the housing (see Figs. 1 and 6 and Col. 4, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 13: Muzslay teaches a connector box (Fig. 1) configured to receive at least one plug 32, the connector box comprising: a circuit board 14, wherein the circuit board comprises a first set of pins 36 mounted on a surface of the circuit board (see Figs. 1-3); a housing 20, 30 defined by a front portion and a back portion (see Fig. 1), wherein the front portion comprises at least one slot 16 for receiving 12 (see Fig. 1), wherein the back portion is configured to attach to the front portion (see Fig. 1), and wherein the circuit board 14 is enclosed in the housing such that the circuit board surface is positioned in the at least one slot and the first set of pins is accessible via the at least one slot (see Fig. 1); and the at least one detachable receptacle 12 having a first end and a second end opposing the first end (see Fig. 1), wherein the at least one detachable receptacle is configured to receive each of the first set of pins through the first end and configured to receive the at least one plug through the second end (see Fig. 1) such that, upon insertion into the at least one detachable receptacle 12, the at least one plug 32 is electrically coupled to the first set of pins (see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 44-49).
Regarding claim 14: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches further comprising at least one connecting member 102 configured to physically attach to the at least one detachable receptacle and physically attach to at least one of the circuit board or the housing (see Figs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 18: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches wherein the at least one detachable receptacle 12 comprises at least one groove and the connector box comprises at least one ridge, and wherein the at least one groove is configured to slidably engage with the at least one ridge (see Figs. 1 and 6).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chadwell (US 2019/0280441).
Regarding claim 19: Chadwell teaches a method of replacing a first connector receptacle 12 attached to a connector box 10 with a second connector receptacle 112 (see Figs. 1-2 and Para. 0047), the method comprising: removing a connecting member (at 25; Fig. 2) from the first connector receptacle to thereby decouple the connecting member (see Fig. 2 and Para. 0043) from a circuit board 41 positioned in the connector box or a housing of the connector box (see Figs. 1-3); removing the first connector receptacle from a slot 98 in the connector box 10 (see Fig. 2), wherein said removing of the first connector receptacle 12 is achieved without opening the housing or disassembling the connector box (see Fig. 2); placing the second connector receptacle 112 in said slot such that a back end of the second connector receptacle is positioned over pins 63 extending from a surface of the circuit board (see Fig. 10); inserting the connecting member (e.g. screws would be inserted into bracket 124; see Fig. 5A) or a different connecting member through the second connector receptacle to thereby couple the second connecting member to the circuit board or the housing (see Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 20: Chadwell teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and further teaches wherein the connecting member is a screw and removing the connecting member from the first connector receptacle comprises unscrewing the screw from a central bore passing through the first connector receptacle (see Fig. 2 and Para. 0043).
Regarding claim 21: Chadwell teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and further teaches wherein the connecting member or different connecting member is a screw and inserting the connecting member or different connecting member comprises screwing the screw through a central bore passing through the second connector receptacle (e.g. both receptacles comprise brackets that allow the insertion of screws to mount the receptacles to the connector box).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muzslay (US 5,735,697), in view of Defibaugh (US 5,007,862).
Regarding claim 2: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one receptacle is a DIN receptacle.
Defibaugh teaches at least one receptacle is a DIN receptacle (see Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the at least one receptacle is a DIN receptacle as taught by Defibaugh into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of their reliability, versatility and cost-effectiveness.
Claims 4-5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muzslay (US 5,735,697), in view of Kulka (US 1,886,199).
Regarding claim 4: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one connecting member is a screw configured to pass through the at least one receptacle and screw into the circuit board or the housing.
Kulka teaches at least one connecting member (at 19; Fig. 1) is a screw 19 configured to pass through at least one receptacle 10 and screw into a circuit board or a housing (see Figs. 1 and 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the at least one connecting member is a screw configured to pass through the at least one receptacle and screw into the circuit board or the housing as taught by Kulka into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of its strong and reliable mechanical connection.
Regarding claim 5: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one receptacle has a bore positioned in a center of the at least one receptacle and wherein the at least one connecting member is a screw configured to pass through the bore and screw into the circuit board or the housing.
Kulka teaches at least one receptacle 10 has a bore 18 positioned in a center of the at least one receptacle (see Fig. 1) and wherein at least one connecting member (at 19; Fig. 1) is a screw 19 configured to pass through the bore and screw into a circuit board or a housing (see Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the at least one receptacle has a bore positioned in a center of the at least one receptacle and wherein the at least one connecting member is a screw configured to pass through the bore and screw into the circuit board or the housing as taught by Kulka into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of its strong and reliable mechanical connection.
Regarding claim 16: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 14.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one detachable receptacle comprises an opening positioned centrally to receive the at least one connecting member.
Kulka teaches at least one detachable receptacle 10 comprises an opening 18 positioned centrally to receive at least one connecting member (at 19; Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the at least one detachable receptacle comprises an opening positioned centrally to receive the at least one connecting member as taught by Kulka into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of its strong and reliable mechanical connection.
Claims 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muzslay (US 5,735,697), in view of Friedrich (US 2011/0151690).
Regarding claim 6: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein the circuit board comprises a second plurality of pins mounted onto the surface of the circuit board, wherein the second plurality of pins is spaced apart from the plurality of pins, wherein the housing is configured to enclose said circuit board such that the second plurality of pins are exposed through a second slot spaced apart from the at least one slot, and wherein a circumferential periphery of the second slot is defined by said housing.
Friedrich teaches a circuit board 12 comprises a second plurality of pins 6 mounted onto the surface of the circuit board (see Fig. 3), wherein the second plurality of pins is spaced apart from a plurality of pins (see Fig. 3 for a plurality of set of pins), wherein a housing 1 is configured to enclose said circuit board 12 such that the second plurality of pins are exposed through a second slot spaced apart from at least one slot, and wherein a circumferential periphery of the second slot is defined by said housing (see Fig. 3 for at least two slots and plurality of pins).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the circuit board comprising a second plurality of pins mounted onto the surface of the circuit board, wherein the second plurality of pins is spaced apart from the plurality of pins, wherein the housing is configured to enclose said circuit board such that the second plurality of pins are exposed through a second slot spaced apart from the at least one slot, and wherein a circumferential periphery of the second slot is defined by said housing as taught by Friedrich into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of providing multiple receptacle connections to establish different connections.
Regarding claim 7: Muzslay, in view of Friedrich, teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Friedrich further teaches further comprising a second receptacle configured to receive each of the second plurality of pins through a third end and further configured to receive a second plug through a fourth end opposing the third end such that, upon insertion into the second receptacle, the second plug is electrically coupled to the second plurality of pins (see Fig. 1 and Para. 0001).
Regarding claim 8: Muzslay, in view of Friedrich, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and Friedrich further teaches further comprising a second connecting member configured to physically attach to the second receptacle and physically attach to at least one of the circuit board or the housing (see Fig. 3 of Friedrich).
Regarding claim 10: Muzslay, in view of Friedrich, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Friedrich further teaches wherein the second receptacle is configured to be removable from the second slot solely by detaching the second connecting member from the circuit board or the housing (see Fig. 3 and Para. 0019 of Friedrich).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muzslay (US 5,735,697), in view of Friedrich (US 2011/0151690), further in view of Defibaugh (US 5,007,862).
Regarding claim 9: Muzslay, in view of Friedrich, teaches all the limitations of claim 7.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein the second receptacle is a DIN receptacle.
Defibaugh teaches a receptacle is a DIN receptacle (see Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the at least one receptacle is a DIN receptacle as taught by Defibaugh into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of their reliability, versatility and cost-effectiveness.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muzslay (US 5,735,697), in view of Friedrich (US 2011/0151690), further in view of Kulka (US 1,886,199).
Regarding claims 11-12: Muzslay, in view of Friedrich, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 4-5, respectively.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muzslay (US 5,735,697), in view of Friedrich (US 2011/0151690).
Regarding claim 15: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one detachable receptacle is configured to be removed from the connector box and replaced with a second detachable receptacle without separating the front portion from the back portion of the connector box.
Friedrich teaches at least one detachable receptacle is configured to be removed from a connector box and replaced with a second detachable receptacle without separating the front portion from the back portion of the connector box (see Fig. 1 and Para. 0019).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the at least one detachable receptacle is configured to be removed from the connector box and replaced with a second detachable receptacle without separating the front portion from the back portion of the connector box as taught by Friedrich into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of allowing quick and easy replacing of detachable receptacles.
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muzslay (US 5,735,697), in view of Kosmala (US 6,758,682).
Regarding claim 17: Muzslay teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Muzslay does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first set of pins is a pogo pin and wherein each pogo pin is spring loaded to form an electrical connection with each pin of the at least one plug when mated with the at least one detachable receptacle.
Kosmala teaches each of a first set of pins (at 30; Fig. 1) is a pogo pin (see Figs. 1-2) and wherein each pogo pin is spring loaded to form an electrical connection with at least one plug 40 when mated with a receptacle 10 (see Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with each of the first set of pins is a pogo pin and wherein each pogo pin is spring loaded to form an electrical connection with each pin of the at least one plug when mated with the at least one detachable receptacle as taught by Kosmala into the device of Muzslay in order to achieve the advantage of maintaining an electrical and mechanical connection due to the biasing features of pogo pins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for pertinent prior art, the following references being of closest relevance:
Furukawa (US 2015/0280373) teaches a connector comprising a pin located on a circuit board and mounted within a box and further comprises a receptacle mounted on top;
Kleinkorres (US 8,096,827) teaches a support device comprising slots and different contact receptacles that are configured to be inserted within;
Glaser (US 2023/0253746) teaches a medical device comprising removable and replaceable electrical connectors;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCAR C JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0272. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/OSCAR C JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights