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 .
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
An interview was held on 1/12/26, during the interview applicant and examiner agree the following:
Applicant expressed this case is focused on the cable configuration as described in the group-I of the restriction.
Since the drawing and SPEC are unclear about the species, Applicant agree to update the drawing and SPEC to further clarify without new matter.
Applicant’s election without traverse of election of inventions in the reply filed on 2/9/26 is acknowledged. Applicant elected group I (or called A) without traverse which is specifically focus on the cable configuration. However, Applicant further change the dependent of the claims 16, 21-22 and merged these claims which are not in the interview agreement.
Claim 56 belong to non-elected invention V. Therefore, this claim will be withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant's election with traverse of restriction requirement in the reply filed on 2/9/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that MPEP § 803 and/or arguing the claims are considered in the same application. In this office action, Examiner Agree to merge some figures which Applicant explained they are the same embodiment. Therefore,
Figures 1-3 are merged to species A.
Applicant further elected Species F (Fig 8) and Species H (Fig 6). Examiner agree with these elected species.
Claims 21-23 are belong to non-elected species. Therefore, these claims are withdrawn from consideration. (See also fig 10)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, Examiner will exam elected claims. (1-6, 12,16)
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and dependent claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “active data ports and adaptor ports” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not clearly disclosed by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. For example, Examiner invite Applicant to explain the following issues:
the active data ports: are these ports active from what initiators point of view?
adaptor ports: are these ports adapted to what targets?
In claim 1, “base subassembly” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. Applicant’s fig 1 show 40. However, 40 is pointed to an unclear portion.
In claim 4, “the second end of the adaptor cable comprises a USB data port and a DC power port that engage with the computer peripheral and the power source, respectively, when the upper dock subassembly operates in hub mode” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required.
In claim 6, “the second end of the adaptor cable comprises a USB data connector that engages with the bridge port of the lower dock subassembly when the upper dock subassembly operates in split dock mode” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required.
The Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant(s) review all claims for any such similar issues. Examiner’s note: some of the claims are even mutually exclusive. Examiner could like to remind Applicant that if the claims are belong to non-elected embodiment, these claims should be withdrawn.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations, discussed in the above claim objections (see above) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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 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.
(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 1-4, 6, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tucker (US 20220397230).
With regard claim 1, Tucker discloses A computer docking station (abstract, see also fig 1-12) comprising a base subassembly that is configured to secure an upper dock subassembly to a work surface (at least fig 1, fig 5, the upper dock subassembly, 536, located a littler higher than other parts; Examiner consider as an upper dock subassembly; see also the following notes), the upper dock subassembly comprising an upper port housing having one or more active data ports and one or more adaptor ports (at least fig 5, 536; paragraph [40]-[42], [43]-[46], [48]-[52]), wherein the upper dock subassembly is configurable to operate in one of the following modes (cited art can read at least one): a) a charging mode, wherein at least one of the adaptor ports is operatively connected to a power source via an adaptor cable (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, see also paragraph [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]); b) a hub mode, wherein the adaptor port is operatively connected to both a power source and a computer peripheral via an adaptor cable (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, see also paragraph [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]); and c) a split dock mode, wherein the adaptor port is operatively connected to a bridge port of a lower dock subassembly via an adaptor cable, wherein the lower dock subassembly comprises a lower port housing having one or more passive data ports and is configured to be secured beneath the work surface by the base subassembly (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, see also paragraph [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]).
Examiner’s note:
The devices in the cited art are adjustable so the “upper or lower” can be changed when the position of the devices are changed.
At least the charging cable connected to the laptop can be the mode-(a).
Regarding claim 2, Tucker further disclosed the adaptor cable comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is an adaptor cable connector that engages with the adaptor port of the upper dock subassembly (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, USB, and/or HDMI, see also paragraph [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]); and c).
Regarding claim 3, Tucker further disclosed the second end of the adaptor cable comprises a DC power port that engages with the power source when the upper dock subassembly operates in charging mode (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, USB, and/or HDMI, see also paragraph [42]-[44], [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]).
Regarding claim 4, Tucker further disclosed the second end of the adaptor cable comprises a USB data port and a DC power port that engage with the computer peripheral and the power source, respectively, when the upper dock subassembly operates in hub mode (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, USB, and/or HDMI, see also paragraph [42]-[44], [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]).
Regarding claim 6, Tucker further disclosed the second end of the adaptor cable comprises a USB data connector that engages with the bridge port of the lower dock subassembly when the upper dock subassembly operates in split dock mode (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, USB, and/or HDMI, see also paragraph [91]-[93], [42]-[44], [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]). Examiner’s note: at least, Examiner consider the northbridge and southbridge are the bridge port.
Regarding claim 12, Tucker further disclosed the one or more active data ports comprise a first active data port, a second active data port, and a third active data port, wherein at least one of the first, second, or third active data ports is selected from a group consisting of a USB data port and a USB charging port (at least fig 4, fig 12 with power source, USB, and/or HDMI, GPIO, PCI, STAT, TV port, see also paragraph [91]-[93], [42]-[44], [56]-[57], [60]-[61], [66]-[69], [73]-[80], [83]-[85]).
Regarding claim 16, Tucker further disclosed the base subassembly comprises a mounting plate having a top surface and a bottom surface (at least fig 2 and fig 6, mounting plate behind 536/534 etc. having a top surface and a bottom surface to support a device on top of it, including, but not limited to, 536, or 534), wherein the upper dock subassembly is configured to be releasably attached to the top surface of the mounting plate (compare fig 2 and fig 5), and wherein the base subassembly further comprises a monitor arm mount attached or integrally formed to the top surface of the mounting plate (at least fig 6, the arm to support monitor shown in fig 5; no label but the arms are behind the monitors).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. 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.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841