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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Claims 6 and 7 contains the trademark/trade names :”USB-C” and “Lightning”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe serial communication protocol ports and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOJO et al. (US 2022/0320708).
Regarding claim 1 HOJO discloses:
A wireless dongle, comprising a flexible printed circuit board assembly having a surface (e.g. 100 shown FIG.3A), and a surface-mount connector connected perpendicular to the surface (e.g. 11 atop 10 FIG.1C).
Regarding claim 2 HOJO discloses:
a housing (e.g. 200 FIG.3A) for enclosing the flexible printed circuit board assembly when folded (e.g. indicated FIG.3A).
Regarding claim 3 HOJO discloses:
the flexible printed circuit board assembly comprises a connector zone to which the surface-mount connector is connected (e.g. shown FIG.1C), a zone for mounting components (e.g. shown FIG.1C), and an antenna zone (e.g. for 21 shown FIG.1C), wherein the connector zone, zone for mounting components and antenna zone stack on top of each other when folded into the housing such that the flexible printed circuit board wraps around the components (e.g. shown FIG.2A).
Regarding claim 4 HOJO discloses:
the flexible printed circuit board assembly is folded in a serpentine configuration (e.g. "compound curve whose central curve is convex" shown FIG.2B)(merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serpentine).
Regarding claim 5 HOJO discloses:
the flexible printed circuit board assembly is folded in an overlapping configuration (e.g. shown FIG.2A).
Regarding claim 8 HOJO discloses:
the surface-mount connector is soldered to the surface (e.g. described paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 10 HOJO discloses:
the housing is constructed from separate parts (e.g. shown FIG.3A).
Regarding claim 11 HOJO discloses:
the surface-mount connector is soldered to the surface (e.g. described paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 12 HOJO discloses:
the components function as a nano receiver (e.g. 200 only slightly longer than 32 shown FIG.3A, "reception" paragraph [0043]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOJO et al. (US 2022/0320708) in view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0289646).
Regarding claim 6 HOJO discloses:
The surface mount connector
HOJO does not explicitly disclose:
USB-C
Lin teaches:
USB-C (e.g. paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Lin as pointed out above, in HOJO, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: interoperability with a wide range of devices which support the USB-C standard. (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 7 HOJO discloses:
The surface mount connector
HOJO does not explicitly disclose:
lightning
Lin teaches:
lightning (e.g. paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Lin as pointed out above, in HOJO, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: interoperability with a wide range of devices which support the Lightning standard. (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 13 HOJO discloses:
components
HOJO does not explicitly disclose:
flash memory
Lin teaches:
flash memory (e.g. described paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Lin as pointed out above, in HOJO, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: The memory system within the flash drive to electrically connect with a host system through the USB connector to allow transferring data there between. (paragraph [0002]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOJO et al. (US 2022/0320708) in view of Cariou et al. (US 2014/0029215).
Regarding claim 9 HOJO discloses:
the housing
HOJO does not explicitly disclose:
either plastic or rubber
Cariou teaches:
housing constructed from one of either plastic or rubber (e.g. described paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Cariou as pointed out above, in HOJO, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: The endcap may be made of plastic, or another material that would not significantly reduce the wireless transmission or reception properties of the antenna. (paragraph [0024]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOJO et al. (US 2022/0320708) in view of Haertel et al. (US 2020/0285819).
Regarding claim 14 HOJO discloses:
the components
HOJO does not explicitly disclose:
security dongle
Haertel teaches:
security dongle (e.g. described paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Haertel as pointed out above, in HOJO, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: enhanced security and cryptography performance in devices, commonly in devices needing to perform secure transactions. (paragraph [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the PTO-892 disclose/teach similar devices to those disclosed in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available, however any interview beyond a first will require special authorization.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (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 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights