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 § 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) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOJO et al. (US 2022/0320708) in view of Schreuder (US 2021/0176557).
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); and
a housing (e.g. 200 FIG.3A) for enclosing the flexible printed circuit board assembly when folded (e.g. indicated FIG.3A)
HOJO does not explicitly disclose:
the surface-mount connector is configured to protrude from the housing.
Schreuder teaches:
the surface-mount connector (e.g. 250 FIG.6) is configured to protrude from the housing (e.g. 610 FIG.6).
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 Schreuder 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: establishment/limiting of a single hole in the housing which may be hermitically sealed in order to protect all contents of the circuit board from external/environmental contamination. (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 3 HOJO as modified discloses:
the flexible printed circuit board assembly comprises a connector zone to which the surface-mount connector is connected (e.g. under 11 shown FIG.1C), a zone for mounting components (e.g. across 10 FIG.1C), and an antenna zone (e.g. under 21/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. 11 atop 10 above 21 shown FIG.2A).
Regarding claim 4 HOJO as modified 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 as modified discloses:
the flexible printed circuit board assembly is folded in an overlapping configuration (e.g. shown FIG.2A).
Regarding claim 8 HOJO as modified discloses:
the surface-mount connector is soldered to the surface (e.g. described paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 10 HOJO as modified discloses:
the housing is constructed from separate parts (e.g. shown FIG.3A).
Regarding claim 11 HOJO as modified discloses:
the surface-mount connector is soldered to the surface (e.g. described paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 12 HOJO as modified discloses:
the components function as a nano receiver (e.g. 200 only slightly longer than 32 shown FIG.3A, "reception" paragraph [0043]).
Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOJO et al. (US 2022/0320708) in view of Schreuder (US 2021/0176557) in further view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0289646).
Regarding claim 6 HOJO as modified discloses:
The surface mount connector
HOJO does not explicitly disclose:
USB Type-C
Lin teaches:
USB Type-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 13 HOJO as modified 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 Schreuder (US 2021/0176557) in further view of Cariou et al. (US 2014/0029215).
Regarding claim 9 HOJO as modified 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 Schreuder (US 2021/0176557) in further view of Haertel et al. (US 2020/0285819).
Regarding claim 14 HOJO as modified 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitations of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112 rejection of claims 6 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As claim 7 has been canceled, the rejection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 2026-01-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments with respect to “surface-mount connector” it must be noted that the claims are interpreted in light of the specification without importing limitations from the specification into the claims (MPEP 2111) and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “surface-mount connector” is a term that is broader than applicants argued ordinary meaning. As a first matter applicant’s present disclosure provides no definition of the argued term, and in addition applicant provides no evidence for their asserted ordinary meaning. Contrary to applicants asserted meaning of the argued term;
Chroneos, Jr. et al. (US 6259039) demonstrates that the term “surface mount connector” may also be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to comprised of something as simple as a solder connection (e.g. 120 FIG.2, described col5 lines6-15);
likewise in Suppelsa et al. (US6229097) which states explicitly “A number of surface mount connections, typically C5 solder bumps, are located on the bottom side, and surround the trim pad.” equating solder connection to a surface-mount connector.
In the present case, the connection between 11 and the circuit of the prior art discloses the claimed “surface-mount connector”, as 11 connects at the surface of the circuit (e.g. shown FIG.1C), which is entirely within the meaning of what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a “surface-mount connector”.
Regarding applicants arguments with respect to claim 3:
Please note the response to the argument with respect to “surface-mount connector” above, see also the clarified rejection of claim 3 above, which does not rely on the ordering of 10, 20, and 30 that applicant argues.
In addition it is unclear whether applicant is also arguing that because 10, 20, and 30 are not physically stacked upon one another (i.e. they touch) they cannot disclose the limitations of claim 3. If this is the argument applicant intends, it must be noted that while limitations from the claims are not imported from the specification, claims are read in light of the specification and it is abundantly clear from the figures of the present application that applicant’s own connector, mounting, and antenna zones are also not physically stacked upon one another as intervening structures such as components 32 keep the zones from physically touching one another. Giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification without importing limitations from the specification into the claims (MPEP 2111) the limitation “stack on top” is understood to mean that all the claimed zones fall along the same vertical profile when folded in the housing. No requirement for physical touching of the zones is read into the claims.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the prior rejections under 103:
The arguments against Lin do not appear to point out any asserted errors in the 103 rejection, instead pointing back to the 102 rejection of HOJO, which is moot.
The arguments against Cariou do not appear to point out any asserted errors in the 103 rejection, instead pointing back to the 102 rejection of HOJO and 103 teaching of Lin, which are moot.
The arguments against Haertel do not appear to point out any asserted errors in the 103 rejection, instead pointing back to the 102 rejection of HOJO and 103 teachings of Lin and Cariou, which are moot.
All remaining arguments are addressed in the response and/or rejection above and so will not be repeated here.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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