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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In the previous Office Action, claim 6 was objected to as allowable subject matter. Claim 6 depended from claims 1-3. Some subject matter of claims 2 and 6 is currently incorporated into independent claim 1, and some subject matter was not included, resulting in a change of scope. Hence the new ground of rejection.
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 1, 3-5 and 7-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the accommodating cavity" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an accommodating cavity” in line 6. It is not clear if this “accommodating cavity” is the same as the accommodating cavity mentioned in claim 1 or a different one. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, it is assumed that claim 3 makes reference to the accommodating cavity of claim 1.
Claims 4-5 and 7-20 depending from claims 1 or 3 are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HSU et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0229061).
Regarding claim 1, HSU et al. teaches a probe structure, which is disposed on a first component (1) and is configured to contact with a conductive component on a second component (power socket, as disclosed in para. 0004), wherein the probe structure comprises: a probe assembly (200 and 300, as shown in fig. 2), comprising a storage position and a contact position (as shown in fig. 3A and 3B, for example), when the probe assembly (200 and 300) is at the storage position, the probe assembly is stored in the first component (1) so as to avoid being damaged by an external force (as shown in fig. 3B), and when the probe assembly (200 and 300) is at the contact position, at least part of the probe assembly (210 and 310) extends out of the first component (1) so as to contact with the conductive component (as shown in fig. 3A); the probe assembly (200 and 300) is movably disposed to move between the storage position and the contact position (as shown in fig. 3A and 3B); wherein the probe structure further comprises: a driving assembly (221, 321 and 400), which is movably disposed on the first component (1) (as shown in fig. 3A and 3B), and the driving assembly (221, 321 and 400) is connected with the probe assembly (200 and 300), so as to drive the probe assembly to move between the storage position and the contact position (as shown in fig. 3A and 3B); wherein at least part of the driving assembly (221, 321 and 400) is disposed on the accommodating cavity (open space formed between S1 and S3, where 221, 321 and 400 is accommodated, as shown in fig. 3A and 3B), and the driving assembly (221, 321 and 400) comprises: a first transmission member (4221 and 4321), rotatably disposed on the first component (1) (as shown in fig. 1-3B, 4221 and 4321 rotate from a vertical Z direction to a horizontal Y direction); and a second transmission member (221, 421, 422, 321, 431 and 432), a first end (422 and 432) of the second transmission member is slidably and rotatably connected with the first transmission member (4221 and 4321) (as shown in fig. 1-3B, 422 and 432 slide together with 4221 and 4321, as well as rotate), and a second end (221, 421, 321, 431) of the second transmission member is hinged with the probe assembly (200 and 300); the second transmission member (221, 421, 422, 321, 431 and 432) drives the probe assembly (200 and 300) to move by means of the rotation of the first transmission member (as shown in fig. 1-3B).
Regarding claim 3, HSU et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, HSU et al. teaches wherein the first component (1) comprises a housing (100), and an avoidance groove (110) is disposed on an outer surface of the housing (100), wherein, when the probe assembly (200 and 300) is at the storage position, the probe assembly (200 and 300) is stored in the avoidance groove (110); or, an accommodating cavity which communicates with the avoidance groove for accommodating the driving assembly is disposed on the housing, and when the probe assembly is at the storage position, the probe assembly is stored in the accommodating cavity after passing through the avoidance groove; or, an accommodating cavity which communicates with the avoidance groove for accommodating the driving assembly is disposed on the housing, and when the probe assembly is at the storage position, a part of the probe assembly is stored in the avoidance groove, and the other part of the probe assembly is stored in the accommodating cavity.
Regarding claim 4, HSU et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3, in addition, HSU et al. teaches wherein the probe assembly (200 and 300) comprises a rotating portion (220 and 320) and a needle body (210 and 310), the rotating portion (220 and 320) is rotatably disposed on the avoidance groove(110), one end of the needle body (210 and 310) is connected with the rotating portion (220 and 320), and the other end of the needle body extends in a direction away from the rotating portion (220 and 320) (as shown in fig. 3A-3B); the needle body (210 and 310) retracts into the first component (1) or extends out of the first component (1) by means of the rotation of the rotating portion (220 and 320) (as shown in fig. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 5, HSU et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4, in addition, HSU et al. teaches wherein an insertion protrusion (protrusion opposite to 221 and 321, as shown in fig. 2) is disposed on one of the avoidance groove and the rotating portion (220 and 320), an insertion groove is disposed on the other one of the avoidance groove and the rotating portion(220 and 320) (as shown in fig. 3A-3B); the insertion protrusion is inserted into the insertion groove and is in clearance fit with the insertion groove (as shown in fig. 3A-3B), and the rotating portion (220 and 320) rotates relative to the avoidance groove (as shown in fig. 3A-3B).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0229061) in view of CIMBAL (DE 19540304 C2).
Regarding claim 17, HSU et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3.
HSU et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the probe assembly comprises a needle rod and a needle cylinder, the needle cylinder is disposed on the accommodating cavity, and at least part of the needle rod is telescopically disposed in the needle cylinder, so as to extend out of the needle cylinder to contact with the conductive component or retract into the needle cylinder to avoid being damaged. However, CIMBAL teaches wherein the probe assembly comprises a needle rod (25 and 26) and a needle cylinder (27), the needle cylinder (27) is disposed on the accommodating cavity (7) (as shown in fig. 1-2), and at least part of the needle rod (25 and 26)is telescopically disposed in the needle cylinder (27) (as shown in fig. 1-3), so as to extend out of the needle cylinder to contact with the conductive component or retract into the needle cylinder to avoid being damaged (as shown in fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the probe assembly comprise a needle rod and a needle cylinder, the needle cylinder is disposed on the accommodating cavity, and at least part of the needle rod is telescopically disposed in the needle cylinder, so as to extend out of the needle cylinder to contact with the conductive component or retract into the needle cylinder to avoid being damaged as taught by CIMBAL with the invention of HSU et al. in order to extend the life duration of the device by protecting it from external unwanted forces.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of HSU et al. and CIMBAL teaches the limitations of claim 17, in addition, CIMBAL teaches wherein the driving assembly comprises: an armature (10), disposed on an end of the needle rod (25 and 26) close to the bottom of the needle cylinder (27) and is fixedly connected with the needle rod (as shown in fig. 4-5); a coil (36) and iron core (38) assembly, disposed on the bottom of the needle cylinder (27); and an elastic connecting member (29), disposed between the armature (10) and the coil (36) and iron core assembly (38), so as to connect the armature with the coil and iron core assembly (as shown in fig. 4-5).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the driving assembly comprises: an armature, disposed on an end of the needle rod close to the bottom of the needle cylinder and is fixedly connected with the needle rod; a coil and iron core assembly, disposed on the bottom of the needle cylinder; and an elastic connecting member, disposed between the armature and the coil and iron core assembly, so as to connect the armature with the coil and iron core assembly as taught by CIMBAL with the invention of HSU et al. in order to have a durable, flexible and reliable driving assembly.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0229061) in view of WANG (CN 112134331 A).
Regarding claim 19, HSU et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2.
HSU et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the driving assembly comprises: a detection component, be configured to detect whether the second component reaches a predetermined position on the first component, and transmitting a detection signal to a controller; and a motor, an output shaft of the motor is connected with the probe assembly, and the motor is electrically connected with the controller; the controller receives the detection signal and sends a driving instruction to the motor, so as to control the motor to drive the probe assembly to move. However, WANG teaches the driving assembly comprises: a detection component (detection sensor), be configured to detect whether the second component reaches a predetermined position on the first component, and transmitting a detection signal to a controller (4); and a motor (11), an output shaft of the motor is connected with the probe assembly (21), and the motor (11) is electrically connected with the controller (4); the controller receives the detection signal and sends a driving instruction to the motor, so as to control the motor to drive the probe assembly to move (as disclosed in the description of WANG).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the driving assembly comprise: a detection component, be configured to detect whether the second component reaches a predetermined position on the first component, and transmitting a detection signal to a controller; and a motor, an output shaft of the motor is connected with the probe assembly, and the motor is electrically connected with the controller; the controller receives the detection signal and sends a driving instruction to the motor, so as to control the motor to drive the probe assembly to move as taught by WANG with the invention of HSU et al. in order to accurately, precisely and automatically connect the devices.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSU et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0229061) in view of Shariff et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0349457).
Regarding claim 20, HSU et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
HSU et al. fails to specifically teach an electronic device, comprising a wearable device and a base, the base is configured to charge the wearable device or perform data transmission with the wearable device or charge the wearable device and perform data transmission with the wearable device, wherein the electronic device further comprises: a probe structure as claimed in claim 1, the wearable device is electrically connected with the base by means of the probe structure; and one of the wearable device and the base is a first component, and the other one of the wearable device and the base is a second component. However, Shariff et al. teaches an electronic device, comprising a wearable device (10) and a base (30), the base (30) is configured to charge the wearable device (10) (as disclosed in para. 0016) or perform data transmission with the wearable device or charge the wearable device and perform data transmission with the wearable device, wherein the electronic device further comprises: a probe structure (302), the wearable device (10) is electrically connected with the base (30) by means of the probe structure (302); and one of the wearable device (10) and the base (30) is a first component, and the other one of the wearable device (10) and the base (30) is a second component (as shown in fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have an electronic device, comprising a wearable device and a base, the base is configured to charge the wearable device or perform data transmission with the wearable device or charge the wearable device and perform data transmission with the wearable device, wherein the electronic device further comprises: a probe structure, the wearable device is electrically connected with the base by means of the probe structure; and one of the wearable device and the base is a first component, and the other one of the wearable device and the base is a second component as taught by Shariff et al. with the invention of HSU et al. in order to have a compact and practical device system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858