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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US Patent 10330301 B1) in view of Davis (US Patent 10317054 B1).
As per claim 1, Howard teaches a floating connector 100, comprising: a housing 102; a substantially planar surface 118 positioned within the housing 102; a set of electrical contacts (114, 116) arranged substantially normal (shown in figure 2) to the substantially planar surface 118; and a bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) cooperatively mated with the housing 102.
Howard does not teach, the substantially planar surface so as to permit the bushing to pivot the substantially planar surface about one or more points.
Davis teaches, the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) so as to permit the bushing 106 to pivot 130 the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) about one or more points (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of the substantially planar surface so as to permit the bushing to pivot the substantially planar surface about one or more points.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 2, Howard teaches a floating connector 100, wherein the bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) has a generally semi-spherical shape (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36).
As per claim 3, Howard teaches a floating connector 100.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged to pivot the substantially planar surface about the one or more points.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 has a tilt ball structure 106 arranged to pivot 130 the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) about the one or more points (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged to pivot the substantially planar surface about the one or more points.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 4, Howard teaches a floating connector 100.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface from about zero to about five degrees (5º) in at least one direction.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 provides a range of motion (see column 5, lines 51-65) of the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) from about zero to about five degrees (5º) (see column 5, lines 60-65) in at least one direction (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface from about zero to about five degrees (5º) in at least one direction.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 5, Howard teaches a floating connector 100.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface of at least five degrees (5º) in at least two directions.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 provides a range of motion (see column 5, lines 51-65) of the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) of at least five degrees (5º) (see column 5, lines 60-65) in at least two directions (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface of at least five degrees (5º) in at least two directions.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 6, Howard teaches a floating connector 100, further comprising: a retention structure 230 arranged to retain the bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) within the housing 102.
As per claim 7, Howard teaches a floating connector 100, wherein the bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) is cooperatively mated with the housing 102.
Howard does not teach, the substantially planar surface so as to permit the bushing to pivot the substantially planar surface about at least two points.
Davis teaches, the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) so as to permit the bushing 106 to pivot 130 the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) about at least two points (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, the substantially planar surface so as to permit the bushing to pivot the substantially planar surface about at least two points.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 8, Howard teaches a floating connector 100, wherein the bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) has a generally semi-spherical shape (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36).
As per claim 9, Howard teaches a floating connector 100.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged to pivot the substantially planar surface about the at least two points.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 has a tilt ball structure 106 arranged to pivot 130 the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) about the at least two points (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged to pivot the substantially planar surface about the at least two points.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 10, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100, mountable to a luminaire 100 of a streetlight (see column 1, lines 9-22), the luminaire 100 including a powerline interface (along 102, shown in figure 1), the electronic apparatus 100 comprising: a floating connector 100 that includes: a housing 102; a substantially planar surface 118 positioned within the housing 102; a set of electrical contacts (114, 116) arranged substantially normal (shown in figure 2) to the substantially planar surface 118, the set of electrical contacts (114, 116) configured to receive alternating current power (see column 4, lines 4-28) from the powerline interface (along 102, shown in figure 1) after the set of electrical contacts (114, 116) are mated to the powerline interface (along 102, shown in figure 1); a bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) cooperatively mated with the housing 102 and electronic circuitry electrically coupled to the set of electrical contacts (114, 116).
Howard does not teach, the substantially planar surface so as to permit the bushing to pivot the substantially planar surface about at least two points.
Davis teaches, the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) so as to permit the bushing 106 to pivot 130 the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) about at least two points (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, the substantially planar surface so as to permit the bushing to pivot the substantially planar surface about at least two points.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 11, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100, wherein the bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) has a generally semi-spherical shape (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36).
As per claim 12, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface from about zero to about five degrees (5º) in at least one direction.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 provides a range of motion (see column 5, lines 51-65) of the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) from about zero to about five degrees (5º) (see column 5, lines 60-65) in at least one direction (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface from about zero to about five degrees (5º) in at least one direction.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 13, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface of at least five degrees (5º) in at least two directions.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 provides a range of motion (see column 5, lines 51-65) of the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) of at least five degrees (5º) (see column 5, lines 60-65) in at least two directions (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing provides a range of motion of the substantially planar surface of at least five degrees (5º) in at least two directions.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 14, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100, wherein the floating connector 100 further includes a retention structure 230 arranged to retain the bushing (220 along 102, see column 7, lines 15-36) within the housing 102.
As per claim 15, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100, wherein the retention structure 230 is a tilt housing 102.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged within the tilt housing to pivot the substantially planar surface about the at least two points.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 has a tilt ball structure 106 arranged within the tilt housing to pivot 130 the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) about the at least two points (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged within the tilt housing to pivot the substantially planar surface about the at least two points.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 16, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100.
Howard does not teach, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged to pivot the substantially planar surface about the at least two points.
Davis teaches, wherein the bushing 106 has a tilt ball structure 106 arranged to pivot 130 the substantially planar surface (along bottom surface of 200) about the at least two points (along 104 and 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Howard in view of Davis to include the teaching of, wherein the bushing has a tilt ball structure arranged to pivot the substantially planar surface about the at least two points.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Howard in view of Davis would have been to have a certain possible adjustability to reposition a fixture to a desired position by applying force in a particular direction without detaching said fixture (see column 1, lines 10-35).
As per claim 17, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100, wherein the electronic circuitry is arranged to function as a small cell networking device (along 112, see column 4 and 5, lines 64-67 and 1-6).
As per claim 18, Howard teaches an electronic apparatus 100, wherein the electronic circuitry (see column 6, lines 4-18) includes edge processing capabilities (see column 6, lines 4-18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON R BURGOS-GUNTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00PM, Monday-Friday.
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 A. Riyami can be reached on (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.
/Nelson R. Burgos-Guntin/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
