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 § 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) 11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funahashi et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0117897 A1; hereafter Funahashi).
Regarding claim 11, Funahashi discloses an image capture system comprising: an image capture apparatus including: a body (see Funahashi Fig. 2, item 15); and a door coupled to the body (see Funahashi Fig. 2, items 21 and 22 which are hingedly connected to each other, item 21 can be construed as the door) and including a first electrical interface (see Funahashi Fig. 5, item 34); and an external accessory configured for electrical connection to the image capture apparatus and including a second electrical interface (see Funahashi Figs. 7 and 8, items 101 and 111), wherein the first electrical interface and the second electrical interface are configured for contact to facilitate power and/or data transmission between the image capture apparatus and the external accessory (see Funahashi Fig. 8, items 38 and 111).
Regarding claim 16, Funahashi discloses an image capture apparatus including: a body (see Funahashi Fig. 2, item 15); and a door coupled to the body (see Funahashi Fig. 2, items 21 and 22 which are hingedly connected to each other, item 21 can be construed as the door), wherein the door includes an electrical interface configured for connection to an external accessory to facilitate power and/or data transmission between the image capture apparatus and the external accessory (see Funahashi Fig. 8, items 32, 35, 36, and 111).
Regarding claim 17, Funahashi discloses the image capture apparatus of claim 16, wherein the door further includes: a door body (see Funahashi Fig. 1, item 21); and connector pads supported by the door body (see Funahashi Fig. 8, items 36 and 37), wherein the connector pads include: first ends positioned within the door body; and second ends exposed from the door body to facilitate connection to the external accessory (see Funahashi Fig. 8, items 36 and 37, respectively).
Regarding claim 18, Funahashi discloses the image capture apparatus of claim 17, wherein the connector pads are recessed into the door body so as not to extend beyond an outermost surface thereof (see Funahashi Fig. 8, item 36 is shown as recessed).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funahashi in view of Reber (Pub. No. US 2012/0099265 A1; hereafter Reber).
Regarding claims 12-15, Funahashi discloses the image capture system of claim 11, but does not specifically disclose that the first electrical interface includes a dynamic configuration, and the second electrical interface includes a static configuration; [claim 13] wherein the first electrical interface includes a static configuration, and the second electrical interface includes a dynamic configuration; [claim 14] wherein the second electrical interface is reconfigurable between an expanded configuration and a collapsed configuration; [claim 15] wherein the second electrical interface is biased towards the expanded configuration.
Reber discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed that it was well known to have one connection have pogo pins, and the other connection terminals be fixed (see Reber Figs. 5 and 8, items 330 and 350).
Pogo pins are well known dynamic connectors which have springs which bias them towards the connection contact (see Reber paragraph [0108] “The pogo pins 330 are spring-biased electric contacts”). Pogo pins therefore are “dynamic” connectors that are “reconfigurable between an expanded configuration and a collapsed configuration” and are “biased towards the expanded configuration” as called for in claims 12-15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace either the first connector or the second connector of Funahashi with pogo pins like that in Reber in order to ensure good connection between the contacts by biasing the pins towards the other contact surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, prior art Reber discloses a device with a door (see Reber Fig. 14, item 700) with connector pads provided on the door (see Reber Fig. 14, item 760), and a receptacle supported by the door body and connected to a circuit board (see Reber Fig. 21, items 720g and 1010), and configured to interface with a power source of the device (see Reber Fig. 14, item 770).
However, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest, either individually or in combination, providing such a door on an image capture apparatus, or providing “an external accessory configured for electrical connection to the image capture apparatus, wherein the external accessory includes: a chassis; a printed circuit board (PCB) assembly supported by the chassis; and connector pins supported by the PCB assembly and configured for contact with the connector pads so as to electrically connect the image capture apparatus and the external accessory, thereby eliminating any need to reposition the door to transmit power and/or data between the image capture apparatus and the external accessory” as called for in claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore allowable over the prior art.
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claims 1, and are allowable for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 1/22/2026