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 statements (IDS), submitted on May 29th, 2024, July 8th, 2025, November 21st, 2025, December 30th, 2025, and March 9th, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias (US 20240397642 A1), herein referred to as Matias and further in view of Kim et al. (US 11815964 B2), herein referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Matias discloses an information handling system comprising: a housing having a port (para. 0002 describes a computer having a port for the dongle to attach to); a processor coupled in the housing and operable to execute instructions that process information (implicit based upon the host device being a computer); a memory coupled in the housing and interfaced with the processor, the memory operable to store the instructions and information (again, an implicit function of a computer/tablet) ; a peripheral (keyboard/mouse, para. 0001) external the housing and operable to communicate by wireless signals (para. 0001); and a wireless dongle (20) having a connector (21) configured to insert into the port along an insertion axis (upwards along 21, as seen in fig. 10), a first circuit board (41) coupled to the connector orthogonal to the insertion axis (see figs. 4A-C and fig. 10), a second circuit board (42), and a radio coupled (wireless components 32) to the second circuit board, the radio operable to communicate with wireless signals to the peripheral (para. 0001),
Matias does not disclose having a first set of plural contacts on a side opposite the connector, the second circuit board having a second set of plural contacts on a side opposite the radio, the first and second set of plural contacts compressed together to communicate between the connector and the radio.
However, Matias does disclose, in para. 0002, edge connector traces printed on the PCB surface to act as connector contacts.
Furthermore, Kim discloses a device having a first set of plural contacts (123, 125, 126) on a side of a board (100), and a second circuit board (200) having a second set of plural contacts (col. 6 lines 1-5), the first and second set of plural contacts compressed together (col. 6 lines 1-5) to communicate between the boards (the boards in Kim are analogous to the connector and radio of Matias, as the key concept is the connection of the signal wiring/pathing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the system of Mathias having a first set of plural contacts on a side opposite the connector, the second circuit board having a second set of plural contacts on a side opposite the radio, the first and second set of plural contacts compressed together to communicate between the connector and the radio, as taught by Kim, to shorten paths and reduce signal loss (col. 9 lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 2, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Matias also discloses further comprising: an antenna (see fig. 4c, para. 0024) coupled to the second circuit board at a side opposite the connector and interfaced through the second circuit board with the radio (wireless components 32); and a cap (22) coupled to the connector (21) to enclose (fig. 7) the first and second circuit boards compressed against each other.
Regarding claim 3, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 2.
Matias also discloses wherein the antenna comprises a three dimensional form (see fig. 10) mounted to the second circuit board (42) and extending out from the circuit board to have at least a conductive portion in a spaced parallel relationship to the second circuit board (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Matias discloses a method for communicating between an information handling system (para. 0002 describes a computer) and peripheral (keyboard/mouse, para. 0001), the method comprising: inserting a wireless dongle connector (20) into a port of the information handling system along an insertion axis (upwards along 21, as seen in fig. 10); coupling a first circuit board (41) to the wireless dongle connector orthogonal to the insertion axis (see figs. 4A-c and 10); coupling a radio (wireless components 32) to a second circuit board (42).
Mathias does not disclose coupling a first set of contacts to the first circuit board on a side opposite the wireless dongle connector; coupling a second set of contacts to the second circuit board at a side opposite the radio; and compressing the first circuit board against the second circuit board to communicate between the radio and the connector through the first set of contacts and the second set of contacts.
However, Matias does disclose, in para. 0002, edge connector traces printed on the PCB surface to act as connector contacts.
Furthermore, Kim discloses a device having a first set of plural contacts (123, 125, 126) on a side of a board (100), and a second circuit board (200) having a second set of plural contacts (col. 6 lines 1-5), the first and second set of plural contacts compressed together (col. 6 lines 1-5) to communicate between the boards (the boards in Kim are analogous to the connector and radio of Matias, as the key concept is the connection of the signal wiring/pathing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the system of Mathias coupling a first set of contacts to the first circuit board on a side opposite the wireless dongle connector; coupling a second set of contacts to the second circuit board at a side opposite the radio; and compressing the first circuit board against the second circuit board to communicate between the radio and the connector through the first set of contacts and the second set of contacts, as taught by Kim, to shorten paths and reduce signal loss (col. 9 lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 11, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 10.
Matias also discloses further comprising: coupling an antenna (fig. 4c, para. 0024) to the second circuit board (42) to communicate with the radio (wireless components 32); and orientating the antenna orthogonal the insertion axis (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Matias discloses a wireless dongle (20) comprising: a connector (21) configured to insert into an information handling system port (para. 0002, computer) along an insertion axis (upwards along 21, fig. 10); a first circuit board (41) coupled to the connector orthogonal to the insertion axis (see figs. 4a-c,10); a second circuit board (42); a radio (wireless components 32) coupled to the second circuit board (42), the radio operable to communicate with wireless signals (para. 0001), and a cap (22) coupled around the first and second circuit boards (fig. 7) to compress the first set of contacts against the second set of contacts.
Mathias does not disclose a first set of contacts on the first circuit board; a second set of contacts on the second circuit board; and a cap coupled around the first and second circuit boards to compress the first set of contacts against the second set of contacts, the radio communicating with the connector through the first and second set of contacts.
However, Matias does disclose, in para. 0002, edge connector traces printed on the PCB surface to act as connector contacts.
Furthermore, Kim discloses a device having a first set of plural contacts (123, 125, 126) on a side of a board (100), and a second circuit board (200) having a second set of plural contacts (col. 6 lines 1-5), the first and second set of plural contacts compressed together (col. 6 lines 1-5) to communicate between the boards (the boards in Kim are analogous to the connector and radio of Matias, as the key concept is the connection of the signal wiring/pathing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the system of Mathias having a first set of contacts on the first circuit board; a second set of contacts on the second circuit board; the radio communicating with the connector through the first and second set of contacts, as taught by Kim, to shorten paths and reduce signal loss (col. 9 lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 18, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 17.
Matias also discloses further comprising an antenna (fig. 4c, para. 0024) coupled to the second circuit board (42) and interfaced with the radio (wireless components 32), the antenna having a spaced parallel relationship (fig. 10) with the second circuit board and aligned to communicate the wireless signals orthogonal (see fig. 10) the second circuit board (42).
Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias and Kim and further in view of Acikalin et al. (US 20230420396 A1), herein referred to as Acikalin.
Regarding claim 4, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Matias nor Kim disclose wherein the contacts of at least one of the first set of plural contacts and the second set of plural contacts comprise conductive silicon.
However, Acikalin discloses a device in which throughputs (analogous to the contacts of the application) comprise conductive silicon (para. 0251).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified system of Matias wherein the contacts of at least one of the first set of plural contacts and the second set of plural contacts comprise conductive silicon, as taught by Acikalin, to provide for a low-q environment (para. 0253) for higher bandwidth.
Regarding claim 12, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Matias not Kim disclose wherein at least some of the first or second set of contacts comprise conductive silicon.
However, Acikalin discloses a device in which throughputs (analogous to the contacts of the application) comprise conductive silicon (para. 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified method of Matias wherein at least some of the first or second set of contacts comprise conductive silicon, as taught by Acikalin, to provide for a low-q environment (para. 0160) for higher bandwidth.
Regarding claim 19, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 18.
Matias nor Kim disclose wherein at least some of the first or second set of contacts comprise conductive silicon.
Matias not Kim disclose wherein at least some of the first or second set of contacts comprise conductive silicon.
However, Acikalin discloses a device in which throughputs (analogous to the contacts of the application) comprise conductive silicon (para. 0251).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified dongle of Matias wherein at least some of the first or second set of contacts comprise conductive silicon, as taught by Acikalin, to provide for a low-q environment (para. 0253) for higher bandwidth.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias, Kim, and Acikalin and further in view of Hall (US 8325015 B2), herein referred to as Hall.
Regarding claim 5, Matias, Kim, and Acikalin render obvious all limitations of base claim 4.
Matias, Kim, and Acikalin do not disclose wherein the conductive silicon includes at least some graphite.
However, Hall discloses a device with an antenna comprised of conductive silicon (col. 3 lines 25-40) and wherein the conductive silicon includes at least some graphite (col. 3 lines 25-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified system of Matias wherein the conductive silicon includes at least some graphite, as taught by Hall, to incorporate properties of the different materials (col. 3 lines 25-40).
Claim 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias and Kim and further in view of Iellici (US 20130194156 A1), herein referred to as Iellici.
Regarding claim 6, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Matias also discloses further comprising: first antenna (see fig. 4c) coupled to the second circuit board (42); wherein the radio (wireless components 32) coordinates transmission of wireless signals at the first antenna to direct the wireless signals towards a position of the peripheral (para. 0001).
Matias does not disclose a second antenna.
However, Iellici discloses a wireless dongle (fig. 3) with a first (12) and a second antenna (12’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified system of Matias wherein the dongle has a second antenna, as taught by Iellici, to cover other frequency ranges (para. 0013).
Regarding claim 13, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 10.
Matias also discloses further comprising: coupling first antenna (see fig. 4c) to the second circuit board (42); and directing wireless signals (wireless components 32) from the first antenna to focus along a desired transmission axis (para. 0001).
Matias does not disclose a second antenna.
However, Iellici discloses a wireless dongle (fig. 3) with a first (12) and a second antenna (12’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified method of Matias wherein the dongle has a second antenna, as taught by Iellici, to cover other frequency ranges (para. 0013).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias, Kim, Iellici and further in view of Claeys et al. (US 20160322695 A1), herein referred to as Claeys.
Regarding claim 7, Matias, Kim, and Iellici render obvious all limitations of base claim 6.
Matias does not disclose wherein the first and second antenna are over molded to embed in a flexible material.
However, Claeys discloses an antenna system wherein the antenna and circuit board are overmolded (0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified system of Matias wherein the first and second antenna are over molded to embed in a flexible material, as suggested by the teachings of Claeys, for design flexibility (para. 0044).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias and Kim and further in view of Conan et al. (US 20170214118 A1), herein referred to as Conan.
Regarding claim 15, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 10.
Matias also discloses communicating with the first antenna when the peripheral is a mouse (para. 0001).
Matias does not disclose communicating with the second antenna when the peripheral is a speaker.
However, Conan discloses a dongle wherein a second antenna (76) communicates with a peripheral and the peripheral is a speaker (para. 0107, audio playback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified method of Matias further comprising communicating with a second antenna when the peripheral is a speaker, as taught by Conan, to provide audio playback (para. 0107).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias and Kim and further in view of Hunt et al. (US 20090096681 A1), herein referred to as Hunt.
Regarding claim 20, Matias and Kim render obvious all limitations of base claim 18.
Matias does not disclose further comprising: a pogo pin coupled to the antenna; and a contact pad exposed on the second circuit board and aligned with the pogo pin to communicate between the radio and the antenna.
However, Hunt discloses a pogo pin (para. 0048) coupled to the antenna (para. 0048); and a contact pad exposed on the second circuit board and aligned with the pogo pin to communicate between the radio and the antenna (para. 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified dongle of Matias further comprising: a pogo pin coupled to the antenna; and a contact pad exposed on the second circuit board and aligned with the pogo pin to communicate between the radio and the antenna, as taught by Hunt, to establish contact between the elements and other circuitry (para. 0048).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 14, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, a second antenna coupled to the second circuit board orthogonal the first antenna and disposed at least in part between the second circuit board and the first antenna.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, coupling a first antenna to the second circuit board in a spaced parallel relationship; and coupling a second antenna to the second circuit orthogonal the first antenna.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, coupling a second antenna to the second circuit board to have an orthogonal disposition relative to the second circuit board; coupling a third antenna to the second circuit board to have an orthogonal disposition relative to the second circuit board; and selecting the second or third antenna to communicate with a peripheral based at least in part on the orientation at which the connector couples to an information handling system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights