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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2024 and 01/02/2026 was filed on and after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8, 10-16, 19 and 20 are 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.
Claim 4 line 2 recites, “USB-C.” USB-C appears to be an industry standard and consequently is subject to change over a period of time. Therefore, the recitations of USB-C in the claim make the claims vague and indefinite. Claims 7, 19 and 20 have the same industry standard recitation within the claims.
Claim 7 recitation, “the lateral retention ramp of the data connector receptacle is modified as compared to a standard USB-C data connector receptacle,” is considered vague and indefinite because what exactly does modified mean compared to a “standard USB-C data connector receptacle”? Comparison of vague statements in a claim is not specific structural limitations in relation to the product being claimed i.e. the data connector plug. The examiner will assume that this recitation is function language and will not have significant patentable weight. Claim 20 recites the same issue.
Claim 10 is vague and indefinite because it appears that the claim is claiming a retention force comparison between two different devices. The examiner realizes that the preamble acknowledges that the claim relates to an electronic device however, the body of the claim does not completely define the structural limitations of the exact device. Specifically, the claim recites, “a standard USB-C data connector receptacle,” “a standard USB-C data connector plug,” “a modified USB-C data connector plug,” “standard ground spring,” and “modified ground spring,” the examiner is very unclear on what the exact invention is. First, since USB-C is a broad industry standard to start with, reciting a standard/modified USB-C plug/receptacle adds further ambiguity to what is specifically being claimed. Second, the examiner is uncertain which claim limitations constitute the electronic device. For example, does the standard USB-C data connector plug/receptacle means a known USB-C connector plug/receptacle in the art? Does the electronic device consist of the data connector receptacle and standard USB-C data connector plug/receptacle or the data connector receptacle, standard USB-C data connector plug/receptacle and modified USB-C data connector plug or just the data connector receptacle and modified USB-C data connector plug? It is improper for an applicant to claim a device in the preamble and then claim an indefinite structure in the body that is used to compare functional values such as the retention force. A clarifying amendment must be made to clearly define the structure of the electronic device of claim 10 or cancel the claim. Lack of a prior art rejection for claim 10 does not render the claim allowable; the claim is just too ambiguous to determine what needs to be searched.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. US9431772 in view of Tsai US2019/0058298.
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a data connector plug, comprising: a connector plug shell (fig. 1; 210) sized and shaped for insertion into a complementary data connector receptacle (fig. 1; 110) of an electronic device; and a ground spring (fig. 2; 240) disposed within the connector plug shell (210), the ground spring having a U-shaped profile (see figs. 2-3; shape of 242 and the beams on opposite sides of 246) at an end (end of 240) of the ground spring (240), wherein the U-shaped profile (shape of 242 and the beams on opposite sides of 246) includes a first ridge (fig. 2; one beam on the top of 246) and a second ridge (fig. 2; other beam on the bottom of 246), and wherein a reference line (fig. 2; horizontal line passing through and parallel to 246) passing between the first ridge (one beam on the top of 246) and the second ridge (other beam on the bottom of 246) is parallel to an insertion direction (fig. 2; horizontal direction) of the data connector plug (290, 210) into the data connector receptacle (110).
Gao does not disclose the u-shaped profile at the distal end.
However, Tsai teaches the u-shaped convex profile (fig. 52; 633) at the distal end (fig. 52; end of 632).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the u-shaped profile at the distal end as suggested by Tsai for the benefit of providing improved retention of a plug connector once mated with a receptacle.
Regarding claim 3, Gao modified by Tsai has been discussed above. Gao discloses wherein the connector plug shell (210) is sized and shaped to enclose a receptacle tab (fig. 1; 120) of the data connector receptacle (110), the receptacle tab (120) including a lateral retention ramp (figs. 2-3; section of 120 inside of 246).
Regarding claim 4, Gao and Tsai disclose (Gao) wherein the data connector receptacle (110) is a USB data connector receptacle, and wherein interaction between the ground spring (240) and the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) causes a spring retention force (force that holds 240 and 130) that resists removal of the data connector plug (290, 210) from the data connector receptacle (110).
Gao and Tsai do not explicitly disclose the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), and also for the benefit of having an optimized USB connector that has improved retention capabilities.
Regarding claim 5, Gao modified by Tsai has been discussed above. Gao discloses wherein insertion of the data connector plug (290, 210) into the data connector receptacle (110) causes lateral deflection of the ground spring (240) away from the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246).
Regarding claim 6, Gao and Tsai disclose (Gao) wherein the spring retention force (force that holds 240 and 130) is a certain amount.
Gao and Tsai do not disclose the spring retention force greater than five newtons.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spring retention force greater than five newtons since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, and also for the benefit of providing improved mechanical retention strength in order to effectively maintain connection of two connectors.
Regarding claim 7, Gao and Tsai disclose (Gao) wherein the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) of the data connector receptacle (110) is modified as compared to a standard USB-C data connector receptacle, such that the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) has a narrower ramp width (width of 120), and wherein the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) passes between the first ridge (one beam on the top of 246) and the second ridge (other beam on the bottom of 246) of the U-shaped profile (shape of 242 and the beams on opposite sides of 246) of the ground spring (240) during insertion of the data connector plug (290, 210) into the data connector receptacle (110).
Gao and Tsai do not explicitly disclose the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), and also for the benefit of having an optimized USB connector that has improved retention capabilities.
Regarding claim 8, Gao and Tsai disclose (Gao) wherein a spring retention force (force of 240) caused by interaction between the ground spring (240) and the receptacle tab (120) is a certain newton value.
Gao and Tsai does not disclose that certain newton value being less than one newton.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the certain newton value being less than one newton since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, and also for the benefit of providing improved mechanical retention strength in order to effectively maintain connection of two connectors.
Regarding claim 9, Gao modified by Tsai has been discussed above. Gao discloses a plurality of plug-type connector contacts (fig. 1; 250) disposed within the connector plug shell (210), the plurality of plug-type connector contacts (250) sized and shaped to interface with a corresponding plurality of receptacle-type connector contacts (fig. 1; 140) of the data connector receptacle (110).
Claim(s) 2 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. US9431772 and Tsai US2019/0058298 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powers et al. US2018/0375271.
Regarding claim 2, Gao and Tsai disclose all of the claim limitations except a plug-side retention magnet positioned such that, during insertion of the data connector plug into the data connector receptacle, the plug-side retention magnet is magnetically attracted to a receptacle-side retention magnet to cause a magnetic retention force that resists removal of the data connector plug from the data connector receptacle.
However, Powers teaches a plug-side retention magnet (fig. 3; magnetic element of 314) positioned such that, during insertion of the data connector plug (314) into the data connector receptacle (fig. 3; 200), the plug-side retention magnet (magnetic element of 314) is magnetically attracted to a receptacle-side retention magnet (fig. 3; magnetic element of 210) to cause a magnetic retention force (attraction of 210 and 310) that resists removal of the data connector plug (314) from the data connector receptacle (200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plug-side retention magnet positioned such that, during insertion of the data connector plug into the data connector receptacle, the plug-side retention magnet is magnetically attracted to a receptacle-side retention magnet to cause a magnetic retention force that resists removal of the data connector plug from the data connector receptacle as suggested by Powers for the benefit of providing improved connector assurance in order to further assist mating of two connectors.
Regarding claim 17, Gao discloses a data connector plug, comprising: a connector plug shell (fig. 1; 210) sized and shaped for insertion into a complementary data connector receptacle (fig. 1; 110) of an electronic device; and a ground spring (fig. 2; 240) disposed within the connector plug shell (210), the ground spring having a U-shaped profile (see figs. 2-3; shape of 242 and the beams on opposite sides of 246) at an end (end of 240) of the ground spring (240), wherein the U-shaped profile (shape of 242 and the beams on opposite sides of 246) includes a first ridge (fig. 2; one beam on the top of 246) and a second ridge (fig. 2; other beam on the bottom of 246), and wherein a reference line (fig. 2; horizontal line passing through and parallel to 246) passing between the first ridge (one beam on the top of 246) and the second ridge (other beam on the bottom of 246) is parallel to an insertion direction (fig. 2; horizontal direction) of the data connector plug (290, 210) into the data connector receptacle (110).
Gao does not disclose the u-shaped profile at the distal end, or a plug-side retention magnet positioned such that, during insertion of the data connector plug into the data connector receptacle, the plug-side retention magnet is magnetically attracted to a receptacle-side retention magnet to cause a magnetic retention force that resists removal of the data connector plug from the data connector receptacle.
However, Tsai teaches the u-shaped convex profile (fig. 52; 633) at the distal end (fig. 52; end of 632).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the u-shaped profile at the distal end as suggested by Tsai for the benefit of providing improved retention of a plug connector once mated with a receptacle.
Furthermore, Gao modified by Tsai still does not disclose a plug-side retention magnet positioned such that, during insertion of the data connector plug into the data connector receptacle, the plug-side retention magnet is magnetically attracted to a receptacle-side retention magnet to cause a magnetic retention force that resists removal of the data connector plug from the data connector receptacle.
However, Powers teaches a plug-side retention magnet (fig. 3; magnetic element of 314) positioned such that, during insertion of the data connector plug (314) into the data connector receptacle (fig. 3; 200), the plug-side retention magnet (magnetic element of 314) is magnetically attracted to a receptacle-side retention magnet (fig. 3; magnetic element of 210) to cause a magnetic retention force (attraction of 210 and 310) that resists removal of the data connector plug (314) from the data connector receptacle (200).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plug-side retention magnet positioned such that, during insertion of the data connector plug into the data connector receptacle, the plug-side retention magnet is magnetically attracted to a receptacle-side retention magnet to cause a magnetic retention force that resists removal of the data connector plug from the data connector receptacle as suggested by Powers for the benefit of providing improved connector assurance in order to further assist mating of two connectors.
Regarding claim 18, Gao modified by Tsai and Powers has been discussed above. Gao discloses wherein the connector plug shell (210) is sized and shaped to enclose a receptacle tab (fig. 1; 120) of the data connector receptacle (110), the receptacle tab (120) including a lateral retention ramp (figs. 2-3; section of 120 inside of 246).
Regarding claim 19, Gao, Tsai and Powers disclose (Gao) wherein the data connector receptacle (110) is a USB data connector receptacle, and wherein interaction between the ground spring (240) and the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) causes a spring retention force (force that holds 240 and 130) that resists removal of the data connector plug (290, 210) from the data connector receptacle (110).
Gao, Tsai and Powers do not explicitly disclose the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), and also for the benefit of having an optimized USB connector that has improved retention capabilities.
Regarding claim 20, Gao, Tsai and Powers disclose (Gao) wherein the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) of the data connector receptacle (110) is modified as compared to a standard USB-C data connector receptacle, such that the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) has a narrower ramp width (width of 120), and wherein the lateral retention ramp (section of 120 inside of 246) passes between the first ridge (one beam on the top of 246) and the second ridge (other beam on the bottom of 246) of the U-shaped profile (shape of 242 and the beams on opposite sides of 246) of the ground spring (240) during insertion of the data connector plug (290, 210) into the data connector receptacle (110).
Gao, Tsai and Powers do not explicitly disclose the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data connector receptacle being a USB-C data connector receptacle since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), and also for the benefit of having an optimized USB connector that has improved retention capabilities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/MARCUS E HARCUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights