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 .
The previous Office Action submitted April 3, 2026, is withdrawn/superseded.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 27, 2024, and August 15, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 3, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-13 & 19-20 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 3, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 3, 2026, please refer to pp. 7-25 of Applicant’s remarks, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 8, & 11, and dependent claims 4-7, 9-10, 12, 14, & 16-18, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments, pointing out their rationale of how prior art references made of record in the most recent Non-Final Office Action, mailed April 3, 2026, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose the limitations of independent and dependent claims, original and amended, mentioned earlier. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 7-10 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every single limitation of independent claim 1, “a socket for receiving the module, wherein the socket includes a plurality of downstops” and “a creep detection circuit configured to detect a threshold amount of creep within the socket, wherein one or more of the plurality of pins are creep detection pins coupled to the creep detection circuit,” and further alleges that the rejection relies on hindsight bias across non-analogous prior art references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into four sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that during patent examination, claims are provided their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant argues that Patel’s PIC supports 64 are “backstops” intended to prevent deformation, rather than “downstops.” The term “downstop” broadly encompasses any mechanical feature that arrests or limits travel in a specific direction. Patel explicitly discloses PIC supports 64 positioned behind the pins that control deformation and limit displacement until the pins physically “bottom out” against the supports ([0008] & [0055]). The semantic distinction between a “backstop” and a “downstop” does not overcome the functional reality that Patel’s structures physically limit the downward travel of the pins to maintain them within an elastic range. Please see MPEP 2111 and 2111.01(I), & 2111.01(III). The Applicant may believe that their terminology of a “downstop” is not synonymous with a “backstop” which is also the mechanical feature that arrests or limits travel in a specific direction, but when the claims are examined, they are provided the BRI.
The second section the Examiner would like to highlight is in regard to the Applicant’s assertion that Hsieh lacks a quantitative “threshold” and does not detect “creep,” further stating that “detecting a threshold amount of creep is a quantitative determination that is progressive, gradual deformation within the socket has reached a particular magnitude”. Under BRI, “creep” encompasses gradual shifting, loosening, or partial disconnection over time. Hsieh discloses a detection circuit 120 that utilizes logic gates, such as an AND gate or an OR gate, to process electrical bias values ([0026]-[0028], [0033], [Claim 5], [Claim 8], & [Claim 13]; please also refer to Non-Final OA pp. 3-6). Logic gates inherently require a specific, quantitative electrical voltage threshold to transition between logic states (e.g., from outputting the first detection signal SD1 to the second detection signal SD2). In the context of the combined system, if the module in Kong physically shifts or loosens, the compression force on the spring contact decreases. This physical shift alters the electrical characteristics at the pins until the inherent quantitative voltage threshold of Hsieh’s logic gate is crossed, thereby triggering the alarm. Therefore, the circuitry of Hsieh satisfies the limitation of detecting a threshold. Please see MPEP 2111 and 2111.01(I), & 2111.01(III).
Third, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies on pg. 10 of Applicant’s remarks (i.e., “detecting a threshold amount of creep is a quantitative determination that is progressive, gradual deformation within the socket has reached a particular magnitude”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Please refer to MPEP 2111, 2111.01(II), 2145(VI), & 2173.03, while the BRI must be consistent with the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims, therefore the BRI of the claim does not require “a quantitative determination that is progressive” or “gradual deformation within the socket has reached a particular magnitude”. The originally presented claim does not recite these additional limitations.
The fourth section the Examiner would like to highlight is the argument where the Applicant alleges the combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh is improper hindsight drawn from prior art references from unrelated fields. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, in response, the test for analogous art is whether the references are from the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. Kong, Patel, and Hsieh all pertain to the mechanical and electrical integrity of pinned connector sockets and communication modules. Kong utilizes spring-loaded contacts under mechanical compression ([0028]-[0032], [0045]-[0047], & [0053]-[0054]). A POSITA would naturally look to other spring-loaded connector arts, such as Hsieh, to verify connection integrity ([Abstract], [0004], [0020]-[0025], & [0027]-[0031]). Combining these known elements to form a mechanically robust socket with integrated connection monitoring yields predictable results and is not the product of hindsight. Please see MPEP 2141.01(a) prior art nonanalogous, 2143(I)(A) KSR rationale, 2143(I)(B) KSR rationale, 2143.02, 2145(III) prior art not physically combinable, & 2145(X) impermissible hindsight.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 10-11 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 6, “each of the creep detection pins is configured to slip off of a contact pad when the socket experiences the threshold amount of creep”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into four sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument presented regarding the principle of operation of the primary communication pins in Kong and Patel as persuasive. Consequently, the Examiner withdraws the previous obviousness rationale relying on the inherent wiping of Kong’s contacts and the design choice to resize the pads. Instead claim 6 is now rejected under a new ground of rejection applying the combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 9601879 B1, hereinafter, Lin).
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that modifying or Patel to engineer a disconnection changes the principle of operation of the cited art, which is designed to hold contacts reliably engaged and further argues that the incidental wiping is not equivalent to being “configured to slip off” when experiencing a threshold amount of creep. In response, the traversal relies on conflating the function of the primary communication pins with the function of dedicated diagnostic detection pins. The proposed combination does not alter Kong or Patel’s primary communication pins, which remain securely engaged under load as intended. Rather, the modification applies specifically to the dedicated detection pins. Lin teaches an electrical connector assembly utilizing dedicated diagnostic detection terminals (26/28) that are structurally configured to be shorter in length than the primary terminals (22). Lin discloses that this shortened configuration results in shorter overlapping contact surfaces, causing the diagnostic terminals to physically disengage (i.e., slip off) from their mating contacts when the connection loosens or backs off (creeps), while the primary terminals remain connected. Therefore, Lin teaches creep detection pins structurally “configured to slip off” of a contact pad when the socket experiences a threshold amount of mechanical displacement. Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Third, the Examiner would like to highlight that during examination, claims are provided their BRI. The phrase “configured to” means the structure is capable of performing the recited function. Providing a finite contact pad sized such that a pin will physically drop off its edge upon reaching a predefine lateral displacement structurally satisfies the requirement of being configured to slip off when experiencing a threshold amount of creep. Please see MPEP 2111, 2111.01(I), & 2111.01(III).
Fourth, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument where the Applicant alleges the only motivation to engineer a disconnection into the contacts comes from the Applicant’s own disclosure. The introduction of Lin cures this defect. Lin provides the known motivation to configure diagnostic pins to mechanically slip off their contacts prior to the failure of the primary pins: to provide early detection and warning that a power connection is loosening before the electrical connection to the component is completely lost. Applying Lin’s shortened, slip-off diagnostic pin configuration to the dedication detection pins of the Kong, Patel, and Hsieh assembly is not the product of hindsight. It is the predictable application of a known mechanical diagnostic technique to a similar modular connector to detect physical displacement thresholds and trigger an alert before catastrophic primary pin failure occurs. See MPEP 2143, 2143.02, 2144.04, & 2145(X).
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 11-12 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 7, “downstop creep is measured by the creep detection circuit based on resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to highlight that the rejection of claim 7 is maintained under a new ground of rejection by further citing Britton et al. (US 2015/0007665 A1, hereinafter, Britton) in combination with Kong, Patel, and Hsieh. Applicant correctly asserts that Hsieh’s detection circuit outputs a binary state rather than measuring a resistance. However, the test for obviousness evaluates the combined teaches of the prior art. Britton, teaches the use of sensor elements comprising resistive components such as piezoresistors to measure physical variables like strain and force by tracking changes in electrical resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the detection circuitry of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh to incorporate the direct resistance measurement techniques of Britton. See updated rejection for Claim 7 below.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 12-14 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), and further in view of Shah (WO 2019/190943 A1, hereinafter, Shah), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 4, “structurally different from the one or more contact pins”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the argument presented argues that claim 4 is allowable by virtue of its dependency from claim 1, asserting that because Shah does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh with respect to claim 1, claim 4 is patentable based on its dependency. This argument is moot because the rejection of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons detailed previously. Specifically, Patel’s supports structurally function as the downstops to limit displacement, and Hsieh’s logic-gate circuitry relies on quantitative voltage thresholds to detect physical connection shifts.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight is the assertion that Shaha’s structurally different pins are designed for RF shielding, providing no motivation to apply that structural difference to a sensing pin. The argument improperly relies on the misconception of bodily incorporation. The test for obviousness does not require the secondary reference to solve the exact same problem, not does it require Shah’s RF ground pin to be bodily incorporated into Hsieh’s circuit as a sensor. See MPEP 2123 & 2145(IV). The combination relies on Shah for its mechanical teaching of staggered or structurally distinct pin geometries, configuring certain functional pins to physically extend differently than standard contact pins to engage pads at distinct locations within the same connector. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to apply Shah’s known structural technique of varying pin geometries to the dedicated detection pins taught by Hsieh. The motivation for this predictable variation is not RF shielding, but to establish a staggered mechanical mating sequence. By making the detection pins structurally distinct, they are physically guaranteed to disengage and trigger Hsieh’s early-warning alarm before the primary communication pins lose their connection during a progressive creep event. Applying a known structural configuration to a known device to yield a predictable mechanical result supports the obviousness rejection under MPEP 2143(A), 2143(C), & 2143(D).
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 14-15 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), and further in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 5, “configured to increase a surface area of the creep detection pins contacting one or more contact pads when the socket experiences creep”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that Miyajima is directed to an optical laboratory testing instrument rather than an electrical socket contact. The Examiner’s previous rationale relying on Miyajima to meet this limitation is formally withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 5 is maintained under a new ground of rejection relying on Kong, Patel, and Hsieh. Applicant asserts that prior art fails to teach the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 5 is allowable by virtue of its dependency from claim 1. This argument is moot and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons detailed previously.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that the cited art lacks an electrical detection pin designed to exploit material flattening as a sensor. During examination, claims are provided their BRI in light of the specification. The phrase “configured to” means the physical structure is capable of performing the recited function. Kong discloses spring-loaded pins featuring curved, bent-metal lobes that compress against flat contact pads. Under BRI, as the socket’s plastic downstops experience viscoelastic creep and yield over time, the module physically settles closer to the circuit board. This progressive settling forces Kong’s curved spring lobes to compress further against the flat pads. A curved spring flattening against a rigid surface inherently increases its physical contact surface area. Therefore, Kong’s contacts are structurally configured to increase surface area when subjected to compressive creep. See MPEP 2111 & 2143.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 15-16 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), and further in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of independent claim 8, “a creep detection circuit configured to detect a threshold amount of creep within the socket, wherein one or more of the plurality of pins are creep detection pins coupled to the creep detection circuit,” a “controller configured to receive data from the creep detection circuit,” and a “database configured to store data related to the creep detection circuit”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that Miyajima is directed to an optical laboratory testing instrument rather than an electrical socket contact. The Examiner’s previous rationale relying on Miyajima to meet this limitation is formally withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 8 is maintained under a new ground of rejection relying on Kong, in view of Hsieh. Applicant reiterates that Hsieh is a binary mating alarm lacking a quantitative threshold creep. As established previously, this argument is not persuasive. Under the BRI, “creep” encompasses gradual physical shifting, yielding, or partial disconnection over time. Hsieh’s detection circuit utilizes logic gates that inherently rely on strict, quantitative voltage thresholds to transition between logic states. When physical creep alters the electrical resistance of the connection sufficiently to cross this inherent quantitative threshold, Hsieh’s circuit triggers. Therefore, this circuitry structurally meets the limitation of detecting a threshold amount of creep. See MPEP 2111, 2111.01(I), & 2111.01(III).
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that the cited art of Miyajima’s optical test data is not “data related to the creep detection circuit” and provides no motivation to add a database to Kong or Hsieh. Miyajima has been withdrawn, therefore this argument is moot. The rejection relies on Kong and Sieh to teach these limitations. Hsieh teaches a processor acting as a controller that receives detection data (the detection signals) from the creep detection circuit. Furthermore, Kong discloses a storage subsystem (680) acting as a database to store system data in a persistent, nonvolatile manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to route the diagnostic detection data received by Hsieh’s controller to Kong’s existing persistent storage database. This represents a substitution and predictable variation of known electrical monitoring systems. The motivation to store this detection data persistently in the database is to maintain a trackable diagnostic record of socket integrity over time, enabling system administrators to analyze historical creep data and execute maintenance prior to catastrophic hardware failure. Please see the updated rejection below for independent claim 8.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 16-17 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), and further in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 9, “comprises resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that Miyajima is directed to an optical laboratory testing instrument rather than an electrical socket. The Examiner’s previous rationale relying on Miyajima to meet this limitation is formally withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 9 is maintained under a new ground of rejection relying on Kong, in view of Hsieh. As detailed previously, the rejection of independent claim 8 is maintained under the modified rationale.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that a logic-level bias shift is not a resistance measurement. During patent examination, claim limitations are provided their BRI consistent with the specification. The term “measurement” is not strictly limited to a high-resolution, multi-bit analog readout; it broadly encompasses determining the state, extent, or magnitude of a physical property, including determining whether that property exceeds a predefined threshold. See MPEP 2111, 2111.01(I), & 2111.01(III). Hsieh discloses monitoring bias values (VB1 to VB4) using a bias voltage generator 110 and a fixed resistor network (R1 to R4). According to Ohm’s Law, the voltage (bias value) observed at these pins is determined by the electrical resistance of the contact loop across the connectors. Hsieh’s circuit physically measures this voltage drop to confirm the resistance state of the connection. While Hsieh’s detection circuit (using logic gates like an AND or OR gate) processes this voltage to output a binary logic-level signal, this binary output is fundamentally a 1-bit resistance measurement and answers a strict quantitative question of whether the physical resistance of the connection increased beyond the acceptable threshold. When Hsieh’s detection signal is passed to a controller and logged in Kong’s storage subsystem (database), the database is storing a historical record of the socket's electrical contact resistance state over time. Therefore, the combination of Kong and Hsieh structurally meets the limitation that the data stored in the database comprises resistance measurements. Please see updated rejection for dependent claim 9 below.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 17-19 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), and further in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of independent claim 11, “enabling a current source, configured to send current at a constant rate, on a creep detection circuit coupled to one or more creep detection pins,” “tracking one or more resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit,” and “detecting socket downstop creep associated with the module based on determining that the one or more resistance values have changed by more than a threshold amount, wherein the one or more resistance values are determined from one or more voltages measured across the creep detection circuit and the constant rate”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into three sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 11 relying on Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Miyajima is formally withdrawn. However, the argument that Patel does not disclose “downstops” remains unpersuasive for the reasons established previously. Under the BRI, Patel’s PIC supports 64 function mechanically as downstops by physically arresting the downward travel of the pins to prevent plastic deformation. See MPEP 2111, 2111.01(I), & 2111.01(III). The rejection of claim 11 is maintained under a new ground of rejection utilizing Kong, Patel, and Hsieh, in view of Tyrrell et al. (US 2020/0259298 A1, hereinafter, Tyrrell). Tyrrell teaches an electrical monitoring circuit that applies a constant current source (e.g., a 1 µA or 80 µA current source) to connector pins. Tyrrell’s system repeatedly samples the resulting voltage across the connection to track the slope of voltage changes over time. Further, Tyrrell links this constant-current voltage measurement to calculating resistance, stating that the resulting voltage is “the applied current…multiplied by the conduction ‘resistance’ at that instant” which is “equivalent to Ohms law”. Therefore, Tyrrell teaches utilizing a constant current source to measure voltage and mathematically derive instantaneous resistance values ([0065]). Please see the updated rejection below for independent claim 11.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to substitute Hsieh’s fixed-voltage, binary-logic detection circuit with Tyrrell’s constant-current, quantitative resistance-tracking circuit with the Kong/Patel socket assembly. This is a substitution of one known electrical monitoring methodology for another to yield predictable results. The motivation for this modification addresses the gap identified by the Applicant: a binary mating alarm cannot report that a resistance value has drifted by a gradual amount. By incorporating Tyrrell’s constant-current measurement technique, the system is upgraded from a binary alarm to a high-resolution diagnostic tool. This provides the benefit of tracking continuous, quantitative resistance values over time to accurately detect gradual physical yielding (socket downstop creep) before a complete open-circuit failure occurs.
Third, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies on pg. 10 of Applicant’s remarks (i.e., “The claimed method fixes the current at a known, constant rate and measures voltage, so that each resistance value is a calculated, quantitative datum, and then watches the tracked values for a change of more than a threshold amount, which is what makes gradual downstop creep visible before failure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Please refer to MPEP 2111, 2111.01(II), 2145(VI), & 2173.03, while the BRI must be consistent with the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims, therefore the BRI of the claim does not require “a quantitative datum” or “then watches the tracked values for a change…” or “which is what makes gradual downstop creep visible before failure”. The originally presented claim does not recite these additional limitations.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 19 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), and further in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 19, “detecting of the socket downstop creep based on the one or more resistance values decreasing by a threshold amount”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into three sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 19 relying on Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Miyajima is formally withdrawn. A new ground of rejection for independent claim 11 in view of Tyrrell further teaches the limitations of dependent claim 19, as well as the previously established reasoning providing for independent claim 11, therefore the dependency argument is moot. Furthermore, Tyrrell, provides the electrical methodology to track resistance decreases. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 19.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that the combination of prior art references teaches detecting creep based on resistance values decreasing by a threshold amount. The argument is not persuasive because the newly applied prior art reference Tyrrell teaches an electrical diagnostic circuit that utilizes a constant current source and Ohm’s law to detect when conduction resistance decreases below a predetermined threshold. Tyrrell’s system continuously tracks the resulting voltage and triggers an alert when the voltage (and therefore the resistance) drops due to an unintended conductive path. Incorporating this methodology into the Kong, Patel, Hsieh assembly meets the language limitations.
Third, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies on pg. 19 of Applicant’s remarks (i.e., “detecting the socket downstop creep based on… (claim 19, corresponding to the creep detection pins configured to increase contact surface area,…)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Please refer to MPEP 2111, 2111.01(II), 2145(VI), & 2173.03, while the BRI must be consistent with the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims, therefore the BRI of the claim does not require “creep detection pins configured to increase contact surface area”. The originally presented claim does not recite these additional limitations.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 19 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), and further in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 20, “based on the one or more resistance values exceeding a threshold value”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into three sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 20 relying on Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Miyajima is formally withdrawn. A new ground of rejection for independent claim 11 in view of Tyrrell further teaches the limitations of dependent claim 20 (Tyrrell, further in view of Lin et al. (US 9601879 B1, hereinafter, Lin), therefore the dependency argument is moot. Furthermore, Kong, in view of Hsieh, in view of Patel, in view of Tyrrell, and further in view of Lin, provides the electrical methodology to track resistance exceeding a threshold.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that the combination of prior art references teaches detecting creep based on resistance values exceeding by a threshold amount. The argument is not persuasive because the newly applied prior art references Tyrrell and Lin teach these limitations. Tyrrell establishes that an open circuit causes instantaneous resistance to rise to a maximum level. Lin teaches detecting a loose connection when the diagnostic value exceeds a predetermined voltage threshold (T1). Tracking a calculated resistance variable to determine if it exceeds a maximum threshold is a direct mathematical outcome of these combined teachings. In response to the mechanical “principle of operation” argument, the argument is again conflating the primary pins with the dedicated creep detection pins. Modifying the system so the detection pins slip off their pads at a predetermined displacement threshold does not destroy the mechanical integrity of the communication module. Instead, calibrating the physical size of a sensor pad relative to a detection pin is a standard optimization of a known result-effective variable. Please see MPEP 2144.05. By optimizing the detection pad to be smaller than the communication pads, the detection pin will slip off, creating an open circuit where resistance exceeds the threshold, triggering the alarm before the primary communication pins fail. This is a predictable calibration of a sensor mechanism, not a destruction of the connector. Optimizing the physical dimensions of a dedicated detection pad to trigger a threshold alarm is a routine engineering calibration that preserves, rather than destroys, the primary communication function of the module. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 20.
Third, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies on pg. 19 of Applicant’s remarks (i.e., “based on the one or more… (claim 20, corresponding to the creep detection pins configured to slip off of their contact pads,…)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Please refer to MPEP 2111, 2111.01(II), 2145(VI), & 2173.03, while the BRI must be consistent with the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims, therefore the BRI of the claim does not require “creep detection pins configured to slip off of their contact pads”. The originally presented claim does not recite these additional limitations.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 19-20 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), and further in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 10, “multiple creep detection circuits, each monitoring downstop creep in an area of the socket proximate to that circuit”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into three sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 10 relying on Kong, Hsieh, in view of Miyajima, and further in view of Patel, is formally withdrawn. A new ground of rejection for dependent claim 10 utilizing the combination of Kong in view of Hsieh further teaches the limitations of dependent claim 10. Furthermore, Applicant asserts that claim 10 is allowable by virtue of its dependency from claim 8, arguing that the prior art fails to teach the controller, database, and creep detection circuit, but this argument is moot. As detailed earlier, the rejection of independent claim 8 is maintained under a new ground of rejection relying on the updated combination of prior art, which addresses the data logging and controller limitations.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that no cited reference teaches multiple creep detection circuits and alleges that the office Action improperly characterized this as a “design choice” to duplicate a binary alarm. This argument is not persuasive because it overlooks the disclosures of the cited art. Hsieh teaches a connection detection device (200) that includes multiple, distinct detection circuits (220_1/220_2) to independently monitor different pin interfaces. Applying multiple detection circuits is an explicit teaching of Hsieh. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 10.
Third, in response to Applicant's argument that the combination of references does not monitor downstop creep in an area proximate to the circuit and repeats the assertion that Patel’s jack has no downstops. Regarding the downstops, as established in the response for independent claim 1, under the BRI, Patel’s PIC supports 64 structurally functions as downstops by physically limiting the downward displacement and deformation of the pins. See MPEP 2111, 2111.01(I), & 2111.01(III). Regarding the localized monitoring, Hsieh teaches strategically placing detection pins at opposite physical extremities of a connector (e.g., short edge E1 and short edge E2) to independently assess the connection state at those specific locations. When Hsieh’s multiple detection circuits and localized pin placements are applied to the spring-loaded, downstop-equipped socket of Kong and Patel, the resulting system inherently monitors mechanical yielding (creep) at the specific physical areas proximate to those strategically placed pins. This is a predicable application of Hsieh’s localized monitoring technique to the Kong/Patel mechanical assembly to detect asymmetric or localized mechanical failure.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 20-22 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Tyrrell et al. (US 2020/0259298 A1, hereinafter, Tyrrell), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 12, “measuring the one or more voltages across the creep detection circuit” and “calculating, based on the one or more voltages, the one or more resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit”. Applicant asserts that independent claim 11 combination lacks a constant rate current source and resistance tracking, alleging that Tyrrell fails to cure these deficiencies because it merely detects water droplets, and argues that this combination to teach iteratively calculating resistance values over the service life of a socket.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into three sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 12 relying on Kong, Hsieh, in view of Miyajima, in view of Patel, and further in view of Tyrrell, is directed to an obsolete combination relying on Miyajima, formally withdrawn. As established in earlier sections of this OA, the reliance on Miyajima has been withdrawn. The rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claim 12 is now maintained under a new ground of rejection incorporating Klein et al. (US 2014/0152449 A1, hereinafter, Klein) and Lin et al. (US 9601879 B1, hereinafter, Lin). The foundational combination has been updated to cure the cited data tracking deficiencies, therefore the dependency arguments against the old combination are rendered moot.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that Tyrrell does not enable a constant current source or calculate resistance, but rather only samples the decay of an electric charge to detect water. This argument improperly focuses on Tyrrell’s intended environmental use rather than its explicit electrical circuit architecture. It is well established that a prior art reference must be considered for all it teaches, not merely its primary intended purpose. See MPEP 2141.02, 2144.04, & 2143.02. Tyrrell discloses an electrical diagnostic circuit utilizing a current source (I1a/I2a) applied to a pin. Tyrrell further teaches that the diagnostic circuit evaluates the physical state of the connection by relying directly on Ohm’s law, explicitly stating: “the resulting voltage is the applied current… multiplied by the conduction ‘resistance’ at that instant.” By teaching a circuit that outputs a known current and measures the resulting voltage to determine the conduction resistance of the physical interface, Tyrrell discloses the structural electrical framework requirements for the claim limitations. Adapting this circuit architecture to quantify the resistance of the creeping mechanical interface in the Kong/Patel assembly is a predictable variation of known electrical diagnostic techniques. See MPEP 2143.
Third, in response to Applicant's argument that measuring voltages and calculating resistance iteratively at a set interval over the service life of a socket is not taught by Tyrrell. This argument is moot because the teaching is not solely relied on Tyrrell for the long-term iterative tracking limitation; this is the reason why Klein is applied in the new ground of rejection. Klein discloses utilizing a microprocessor and a data logger to track electrical degradation (creep) over the service life of a printed circuit board. Klein teaches measuring the voltage across the circuit, converting it to a resistance value (disclosing the transimpedance amplifier conversion V1 = iR1), and iteratively storing this voltage-versus-time information in the data logger to continuously monitor physical degradation. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the iterative resistance calculation and long-term data logging methodology of Klein into the Kong/Patel/Hsieh assembly. Doing so applies a known monitoring technique to a known electrical interface to yield the predictable result of quantifying mechanical degradation over time. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 12.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 20-22 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Tyrrell et al. (US 2020/0259298 A1, hereinafter, Tyrrell), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 13, “storing the one or more resistance values each time they are calculated”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 13 relying on Kong, Hsieh, in view of Miyajima, in view of Patel, and further in view of Tyrrell, is directed to an obsolete combination relying on Miyajima, formally withdrawn. As established in earlier sections of this OA, the reliance on Miyajima has been withdrawn. Applicant asserts that dependent claim 13 is allowable by virtue of dependency from claim 11, arguing that the prior art fails to teach the constant rate current source and iterative resistance tracking. This argument is moot, as detailed in earlier sections of the responses, the rejection of base claim 11 is maintained under a new ground of rejection incorporating Tyrrell, and dependent claim 13, further incorporates Lin, in view of Klein.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that the combination or prior art fails to teach storing the resistance values each time they are calculated. This argument is not persuasive because it ignores the discloses of the newly applied prior art reference, Klein. Klein discloses utilizing a microprocessor and a data logger to continuously record and store voltage versus time data, which is mathematically correlated to the circuit’s resistance, for later retrieval and historical tracking. Incorporating Klein’s continuous data logging architecture discloses or suggests the limitations of storing the calculated values over the service life of the socket. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 13.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 20-22 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Tyrrell et al. (US 2020/0259298 A1, hereinafter, Tyrrell), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 14, “comparing the one or more resistance values to previously recorded resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 14 relying on Kong, Hsieh, in view of Miyajima, in view of Patel, and further in view of Tyrrell, is directed to an obsolete combination relying on Miyajima, formally withdrawn. Applicant asserts that dependent claim 14 is allowable by virtue of dependency from claim 11, arguing that the prior art fails to teach the constant rate current source and iterative resistance tracking. This argument is moot, as detailed in earlier sections of the responses, the rejection of base claim 11 is maintained under a new ground of rejection incorporating Tyrrell, and dependent claim 14, further incorporates Lin, in view of Klein.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that the prior art fails to teach comparing the resistance values to previously recorded resistance values. Klein teaches a continuous monitoring method that includes determining whether the resistance of the structure increases over time in response to changing conditions (e.g., Step 660). A microprocessor cannot logically or mathematically determine an iteratively tracked variable has “increased” over a period of time without comparing the newly calculated value against a previously recorded historical value. Incorporating Klein’s continuous data logging architecture discloses or suggests the inherent operational requirement in Klein’s logic flow that would satisfy the limitation of comparing current iterative values to previously recorded values. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 14.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 20-22 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Tyrrell et al. (US 2020/0259298 A1, hereinafter, Tyrrell), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 15, “generating a notification responsive to detecting socket downstop creep”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that the previous rejection of claim 15 relying on Kong, Hsieh, in view of Miyajima, in view of Patel, and further in view of Tyrrell, is directed to an obsolete combination relying on Miyajima, formally withdrawn. Applicant asserts that dependent claim 15 is allowable by virtue of dependency from claim 11, arguing that the prior art fails to teach the constant rate current source and iterative resistance tracking. This argument is moot, as detailed in earlier sections of the responses, the rejection of base claim 11 is maintained under a new ground of rejection incorporating Tyrrell, and dependent claim 15, further incorporates Lin, in view of Klein.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that the prior art fails to teach generating a notification responsive to detecting socket downstop creep. This argument overlooks the discloses of multiple applied references. Hsieh teaches a connection detection device equipped with an alarm element (240) that generates an alarm signal (SA), such as an alarm light (LA) or alarm sound (AA), in response to detecting an incomplete or shifted physical connection. Furthermore, Klein discloses triggering an alarm (160) when the microprocessor detects that the monitored electrical resistance has crossed a critical threshold indicating physical degradation. The application of these notification mechanisms to the creeping downstop assembly of Kong and Patel renders these limitations obvious. See MPEP 2145 (IV), 2143.02, & 2141.02. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 15.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 22-24 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Svennebring et al. (US 2023/0362082 A1, hereinafter, Svennebring), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 16, “responsive to detecting the socket downstop creep, shifting workload away from an area experiencing the socket downstop creep”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight is the argument that claim 16 is allowable by virtue of dependence from claim 11, arguing that the prior art fails to teach the constant rate current source and resistance tracking. The argument is moot, as previously detailed earlier in the Office Action, the reliance on Miyajima has been withdrawn. The rejection of dependent claim 11 is maintained under a new ground of rejection incorporating Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Tyrrell, which cures the electrical tracking and measurement deficiencies. Independent claim 11 remains unpatentable under the updated combination, and dependent claim 16, which incorporates Kong, Patel, Hsieh, Tyrrell, Klein, in view of Svennebring, is further rejected.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that Svennebring fails to teach shifting workloads responsive to “socket downstop creep,” noting that Svennebring shifts tasks based on radio link degradation rather than physical socket conditions. In response, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). The Examiner does not rely on Svennebring to teach the detection of socket downstop creep; the primary combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Klein provide the structural and electrical framework for detecting and quantifying the localized physical socket degradation. Svennebring is relied upon for the automated remediation technique of dynamically offloading computational tasks and transferring application instances from a source node to a target node to avoid system degradation. Applying Svennebring’s known technique of transferring application workloads away from degraded hardware to the specific hardware degradation detected by the base combination (socket creep) is a predictable variation, see MPEP 2143 and 2143.02. The result is the successful preservation of system stability and prevention of data loss when a localized physical socket connection begins to fail. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 16.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 22-24 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Svennebring et al. (US 2023/0362082 A1, hereinafter, Svennebring), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 17, “another core on the module, another processor on the module, and another module, tie the workload shifting to the physical layout of the module seated in the creeping socket”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight is the argument that claim 17 is allowable by virtue of dependence from claim 11, arguing that the prior art fails to teach the constant rate current source and resistance tracking. The argument is moot, as previously detailed earlier in the Office Action, the reliance on Miyajima has been withdrawn. The rejection of dependent claim 11 is maintained under a new ground of rejection incorporating Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Tyrrell, which cures the electrical tracking and measurement deficiencies. Independent claim 11 remains unpatentable under the updated combination, and dependent claim 17, which incorporates Kong, Patel, Hsieh, Tyrrell, Klein, in view of Svennebring, is further rejected.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight that the Applicant asserts that Svennebring fails to teach the network-level migration recited in claim 17 (shifting to another core, another processor, or another module). This argument restricts the scope of the cited prior art. Svennebring discloses processing environments comprising “one or more processor cores (CPUs), one or more application processors, one or more graphics processing units (GPUs)… one or more microprocessors or controllers, or any suitable combination thereof”. Furthermore, Svennebring teaches that the hardware abstraction layer and virtualization infrastructure manage computing resources across these discrete hardware elements to transfer application instances. When Svennebring’s virtualization and workload offloading techniques are applied to the modular physical architecture of Kong, shifting the workload to an unaffected core, processor, or module is the execution of Svennebring’s offloading protocol mapped to the available hardware resources. Routing tasks away from the specific failing pin connections to healthy processing units within the same local cluster or module assembly represents a substitution of destinations using known load-balancing and virtualization parameters to bypass the failing socket downstop. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 17.
rejection below for dependent claim 16.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pg. 24 of Applicant’s remarks, presents the argument that prior art references Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, hereinafter, Kong), in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, hereinafter, Hsieh), in view of Miyajima (US 2018/0164199 A1, hereinafter, Miyajima), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, hereinafter, Patel), and further in view of Svennebring et al. (US 2023/0362082 A1, hereinafter, Svennebring), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, each and every limitation of dependent claim 18, “generates a strain map across a module using resistance values from creep detection pins of a socket”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight the traversal of the Examiner’s reliance on Official Notice for the feature of generating a strain map across the module. In accordance with MPEP 2144.03©, the Examiner withdraws the Official Notice. To provide the requested evidence, the rejection of claim 18 is maintained under a new ground of rejection utilizing the combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, Klein, Svennebring, and further in view of Britton (US 2015/0007665 A1, hereinafter, Britton).
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight the argument that none of the previously cited prior art references generates a strain map across a module using resistance values. This is true of Hsieh and the withdrawn Miyajima reference, but the newly applied Britton reference cures this deficiency. Britton provides the evidence demonstrating that it is well known in the art to utilize a spatially distributed array of resistive components to measure, calculate, and image a position-resolved “strain profile” (i.e., a strain map) across a physical structure based on discrete changes in electrical resistance. By substituting Britton in place of the traversed Official Notice, the structural and algorithmic limitations of claim 18 are fully met by the prior art. The motivation to combine Britton’s spatial strain imaging with the monitored multi-pin socket assembly of the primary combination is to visualize the distribution and magnitude of physical stress gradients across the socket interface, enabling the mitigation of mechanical loading anomalies before localized creep cascades into complete hardware failure. Please see the updated rejection below for dependent claim 18.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "wherein each of the creep detection pins is configured to slip off of a contact pad…" in ll. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “configured to” in claim 6 will be interpreted as the physical structure capable of performing the recited function (i.e., providing a contact pad sized such that a pin will physically drop off its edge upon reaching a lateral displacement (predetermined maximum creep tolerance)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2023/0120513 A1, Pub. Date Apr. 20, 2023, hereinafter Kong), in view of Patel (US 2016/0111822 A1, Pub. Date Apr. 21, 2016, hereinafter Patel), and further in view of Hsieh (US 2024/0003986 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 4, 2024, hereinafter Hsieh).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kong, teaches:
An apparatus comprising (Fig. 2a; [Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], & [Claim 1]):
a module including multiple contact pads ([Abstract], [0001], [0023]-[0029], & [0032]: discloses an apparatus, specifically an assembly featuring a module that includes an array of contact pads); and
a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising (Figs. 2a & 2b; [0023]-[0026] & [0028]: discloses PCB depicted as motherboard 204):
a socket for receiving the module (Fig. 5a; [0023]-[0029] & [0053]: discloses CMT connector 228 acts as the socket that receives the compression contact module to connect it to the PCB), ), and a plurality of pins configured to contact the multiple contact pads of the module when the module is coupled to the socket (Figs. 2a & 5a; [0028]-[0032], [0045]-[0047], & [0053]-[0054]: CMT connector 228 is the socket, the CMT contacts 230 are the plurality of pins, the contact itself is a compression contact, implying a physical stop and furthermore, the alignment pins/dowels 510, 512 in the CMT connector acts as physical guides and stops to ensure proper seating, and discloses the plurality of pins configured to contact the module’s pads when compressed/coupled into the socket); and
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein the socket includes a plurality of downstops
However, Patel, further teaches:
wherein the socket includes a plurality of downstops (Figs. 4 & 5; [Abstract], [0008], [0010], [0055]-[0056], & [0064]: teaches a communication jack with a PIC support that acts as a mechanical stop, description states the PIC supports are positioned to control the PIC bend radius and limit the PIC displacement and prevent plastic deformation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kong’s the socket/connector (228) to include the plurality of downstops (64)as taught by Patel, according to known methods, as a substitution of known mechanical connector features. The combination of Kong and Patel teaches or suggests the connector apparatus, specifically modifying Kong’s socket with Patel’s plurality of downstops for the plurality of pins. Kong discloses the base apparatus including the module, PCB, and socket with pins contacting pads, but lacks mechanical downstops within the socket to limit downward pin travel. Patel teaches a socket connector utilizing downstops (PIC supports 64) positioned behind the pins to control bend radius and limit displacement until the pins physically “bottom out”. The motivation for this modification is to prevent plastic deformation of the pins and ensure they remain within an elastic range during module mating, thereby improving the mechanical durability and long-term reliability of the socket, preventing damage to the spring-loaded contacts, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Kong, and Patel, are silent in regard to:
a creep detection circuit configured to detect a threshold amount of creep within the socket, wherein one or more of the plurality of pins are creep detection pins coupled to the creep detection circuit.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
a creep detection circuit configured to detect a threshold amount of creep within the socket (Figs. 5 & 21; [Abstract], [0004], [0020]-[0025], [0027]-[0031], & [0058]: teaches a connection device with a detection circuit (120, 220, 320) that detects the state of connection between connectors, detecting shifts in bias values to determine if pins are mated), wherein one or more of the plurality of pins are creep detection pins coupled to the creep detection circuit (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0020]-0031], & [Claim 1]: teaches the first connector includes detection pins DP1/DP2 that are part of the connector and are coupled to the detection circuit 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hsieh’s connection detection circuit (120) and detection pins (DP1/DP2) into the modified socket connector of Kong and Patel as a predictable variation of known electronic monitoring techniques applied to a known connector system. Sockets that are subjected to continuous compressive forces (i.e., compression connector in Kong) are susceptible to viscoelastic deformation (creep) over time, which can degrade signal integrity. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh teaches or suggests the creep detection circuit and the creep detection pins. The modified Kong/Patel combination teaches a mechanical connector assembly but lacks a dedicated circuit utilizing specific pins to detect physical creep, loosening, or partial disconnection within the socket. Hsieh discloses a connection detection circuit (120) coupled to dedicated detection pins (DP1/DP2) with a connector (CN1) that monitors electrical bias values to detect physical shifts and trigger an alarm if the connection loosens. The motivation to combine these teaches is to actively monitor the structural physical integrity of the socket housing and connection in real-time over its lifecycle, preventing device malfunction or hardware damage caused by improper or creeping electrical connections, enabling preventative maintenance or replacement before a catastrophic failure of the memory module connection occurs, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Kong, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 [Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], & [Claim 1],
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein the module includes one or more connections between one or more contact pads contacting the creep detection pins.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
wherein the module includes one or more connections ([0052]-[0053]) between one or more contact pads contacting the creep detection pins (Figs. 1 & 3; [0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0028], [0033]-[0037], [0053]-[0054], [0058], [Claim 1], & [Claim 3]: connection loop is formed between the detection pins DP1/DP2 on the first connector and the loop pins LP1/LP2 on the second connector. The bias value shift occurs due to a conductive path formed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kong’s module pads (232) to include Hsieh’s short-circuit connection between the pads as a substitution of known electrical continuity pathways. The combination of Kong and Hsieh teaches or suggests the apparatus wherein the module includes one or more connections between one or more contact pads contacting the creep detection pins. Kong discloses a module (214) with contact pads (232) but does not detail a shorted connection bridging specific pads used for detection. Hsieh teaches a mating connector (CN2) having loop pins (LP1/LP2) that form a short circuit, creating a continuous connection loop when mated with detection pins (DP1/DP2) to allow the detection circuit (120) to monitor continuity. The motivation for this modification is to complete the electrical circuit required for the detection system to actively sense physical disconnections or creep, improving the diagnostic capabilities of the device (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Kong, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 [Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], & [Claim 1],
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein the plurality of pins includes the creep detection pins and one or more contact pins configured to route signals between the module and the PCB.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
wherein the plurality of pins includes the creep detection pins (Figs. 1 & 3; [0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0028], [0033]-[0037], [0054], [0058], [Claim 1], & [Claim 3]: teaches that among the plurality of pins in the first connector, specific pins are designated as detection pins DP1/DP2 and are coupled to the detection circuit)
The Examiner is combining Kong in view of Hsieh, implementing Kong’s pins inside the socket (CMT connector) which act as signal routing paths between the memory module and the motherboard (PCB) ([Abstract], [0028]-[0032], [0036], & [0070]).
and one or more contact pins configured to route signals between the module and the PCB ([0033]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kong’s pin array to allocate Hsieh’s dedicated creep detection pins alongside the signal routing contact pins as a substitution of known multi-functional connector layouts. The combination of Kong and Hsieh teaches or suggests the apparatus wherein the plurality of pins includes the creep detection pins and one or more contact pins configured to route signals between the module and the PCB. Kong discloses an apparatus utilizing an array of pins, specifically CMT contacts 230, to route signals between the compression contact module 214 and the motherboard PCB 204. While Kong relies on these pins for data routing, Hsieh teaches diving a connector’s plurality of pins into dedicated communication pins for transmitting signals and specific detection pins such as DP1 to DP4, for monitoring the connection state. The motivation for this modification is to allow the connector to simultaneously transmit necessary operational data while continuously monitoring the physical integrity of the socket to prevent data loss or hardware damage from partial disconnections. Integrating Hsieh’s creep detection pins into the same exact pin array optimizes the physical footprint of the connector and allows the system to continuously monitor the mechanical integrity and compression loss (creep) of the socket housing over time, without interrupting or interfering with the primary signal paths, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Kong, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (Figs. 5a-5c; [Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], [0053], & [Claim 1]: teaches CMT connector includes a plurality of pins), wherein the creep detection pins are configured to increase a surface area of the creep detection pins contacting one or more contact pads ([0029] & [0053])
Kong, is silent in regard to:
when the socket experiences creep.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
when the socket experiences creep ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Hsieh’s detection circuit to track the predictable variation in Kong’s mechanical contact area. The combination of Kong and Hsieh teaches or suggests the apparatus wherein the creep detection pins are configured to increase a surface area of the creep detection pins contacting one or more contact pads when the socket experiences creep. Kong discloses spring-loaded pins featuring curved lobes compressed against flat contact pads. Hsieh provides the electrical circuit couped to these pins to monitor the connection state. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as the socket’s plastic downstops experience viscoelastic creep and yield over time, the module physically settles closer to the board, forcing Kong’s curved spring lobes to compress further and inherently flatten, thereby increasing their contact surface area against the pads. The motivation for this modification is to manipulate the expanding contact patch to accurately measure the compressive downstop yielding, providing the benefit of triggering predictive maintenance before catastrophic physical failure of the socket occurs (KSR).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Patel, in view of Hsieh, and further in view of Shah (WO 2019/190943 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 3, 2019, hereinafter, Shah).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Kong, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3 (Figs. 5a-5c; [Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], [0053], & [Claim 1]: teaches CMT connector includes a plurality of pins),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein the creep detection pins are structurally different from the one or more contact pins.
However, Shah, further teaches:
wherein the creep detection pins are structurally different ([0017]) from the one or more contact pins (Figs. 1, 2, 4 & 6; [Abstract], [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0027], [0030], & [0043]-[0047]: teaches structural differentiation, ground pads are designed with different configuration (location, connection method) to serve a different function (shielding/grounding) than the signal contact pads, further teaching that pins/pads in a connector can have different structures based on their function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection pins of the Kong, Patel, and Hsieh assembly to be structurally different from the primary contact pins, as taught by Sha, representing a predictable variation of known mechanical connector configurations. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh provides a connector socket with downstops and an electrical detection circuit, but lacks configuring the specialized detection pins to be structurally different from the standard contact pins. Shah discloses a connector assembly wherein specialized pins, such as ground contact pin 136 , are structurally different from standard contact pins 310 and 312 by physically extending over the standard contact pads 138 to reach a distinctly positioned pad 134. The motivation for this modification is to enable a staggered mating sequence where the structurally distinct pins physically engage or disengage at a different depth threshold than the primary communication pins. This structural variation provides the benefit of physically ensuring that the detection circuit mechanically breaks and triggers an early-warning alarm prior to the complete loss of the primary signal connections during a creeping event Further, the motivation by a POSITA would be to apply Shah’s structurally different pin design to Hsieh’s creep detection pins within Kong’s and Patel’s socket, according to known methods, to ensure the creep detection circuit triggers and alerts the system of impending mechanical failure before the primary signal pins lose contact and cause data corruption, and yield predictable expected results (KSR).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Patel, in view of Hsieh, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 9601879 B1, Pat. Date Mar. 21, 2017, hereinafter, Lin).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Kong, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], & [Claim 1]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein each of the creep detection pins is configured to slip off of a contact pad when the socket experiences the threshold amount of creep.
However, Lin, further teaches:
wherein each of the creep detection pins is configured to slip off of a contact pad ([Col. 5, ll. 44-53] & [Col. 6, ll. 7-45]) when the socket experiences the threshold amount of creep ([Col. 6, ll. 7-45]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Lin’s shortened diagnostic pin configuration to the dedicated detection pins of the Kong and Hsieh socket assembly as a predictable variation of known mechanical connection monitoring techniques. The combination of Kong, Hsieh, and Lin teaches or suggests the apparatus wherein each of the creep detection pins is configured to slip off of a contact pad when the socket experiences the threshold amount of creep. While the combination of Kong and Hsieh teaches a socket assembly utilizing detection pins and an open-circuit scheme, it does not detail sizing the detection pins to intentionally physically break contact at a predetermined mechanical displacement threshold. Lin discloses a mechanical early-warning configuration wherein dedicated diagnostic detection terminals (26/28) are structurally shortened relative to primary terminals (22) so that they mechanically disengage, or slip off, their mating contacts (30/32) when the connector experiences a threshold amount of physical loosening. The motivation for this structural optimization is to detect a specific physical displacement threshold, intentionally breaking the detection circuit to trigger a diagnostic alert before the primary communication pins suffer a catastrophic mechanical disconnect (KSR).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Patel, in view of Hsieh, and further in view of Britton et al. (US 2015/0007665 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 8, 2015, hereinafter, Britton).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Kong, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 [Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], & [Claim 1],
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein downstop creep is measured by the creep detection circuit based on resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Kong and Patel in view of Hsieh, implementing Patel’s PIC supports 64 that constitute the downstops (Figs. 4 & 5; [Abstract], [0008], [0010], [0055]-[0056], [0064], & [0066]-[0067]).
wherein downstop creep is measured by the creep detection circuit ([0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0028], [0031], [0033]-[0037], [0054], [0058], [Claim 1], & [Claim 3]: teaches creep detection circuit)
The Examiner is combining Kong and Patel in view of Hsieh and Britton, implementing Britton’s sensing array utilizing resistive components ([Abstract], [0006], [0036], & [Claim 1]).
based on resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0008]-[0010], [0027]-[0029], [0033]-[0037], [0039]-[0040], [0043]-[0045], [0049], [0052], [0079], [0081], [Claim 18], & [Claim 19]: teaches utilizing a resistor and bias voltages to determine the connection state. Detecting whether a bias value shifts based on a connection loop is a direct measurement of the electrical resistance of that loop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the detection circuit of the Kong, Patel, and Hsieh assembly to utilize Britton’s resistance measurement to detect downstop strain as a substitution of known sensing modalities. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh in view of Britton teaches or suggests the apparatus wherein the downstop creep is measured by the creep detection circuit based on resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit. Kong, Patel, and Hsieh in combination provide a mechanically supported socket equipped with an electrical detection circuit utilizing bias voltages but lacks disclosure of measuring mechanical downstop creep using direct resistance measurements. Britton discloses a sensing array utilizing resistive components, specifically piezoresistors, to measure physical variables such as force and strain on a structural element by detecting changes in electrical resistance. The motivation for this modification is to provide a sensitive, localized measurement of mechanical yielding or creep on the downstops, that would dictate the mechanical compression limit of the socket, and any viscoelastic deformation (creep) of the socket housing, improving the diagnostic accuracy of the connection monitoring system before failure occurs, preventing damage to the spring-loaded contacts and ensuring a reliable, long-term electrical connection between the module and the PCB, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Hsieh.
Regarding independent claim 8, Kong, teaches:
A system comprising ([Abstract], [0023], & [0026]-[0028]: teaches a complete electronic system/assembly):
a module including multiple contact pads ([Abstract], [0001], [0023]-[0025], [0028]-[0029], & [0032]: teaches a compression contact module featuring an array of contact pads);
a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising (Figs. 2a & 2b; [0023]-[0026] & [0028]: teaches a PCB (motherboard) that interfaces with the module):
a socket for receiving the module (Fig. 5a; [0023]-[0029] & [0053]: discloses CMT connector 228 acts as the socket that receives the compression contact module to connect it to the PCB), wherein the socket includes a plurality of pins configured to contact the multiple contact pads of the module when the module is coupled to the socket (Figs. 2a & 5a; [0028]-[0032], [0045]-[0047], & [0053]-[0054]: CMT connector 228 is the socket, the CMT contacts 230 are the plurality of pins, the contact itself is a compression contact, implying a physical stop and furthermore, the alignment pins/dowels 510, 512 in the CMT connector acts as physical guides and stops to ensure proper seating, and discloses the plurality of pins configured to contact the module’s pads when compressed/coupled into the socket); and
a database configured to store data related to the creep detection circuit ([0062]).
Kong, is silent in regard to:
a creep detection circuit configured to detect a threshold amount of creep within the socket, wherein one or more of the plurality of pins are creep detection pins coupled to the creep detection circuit;
a controller configured to receive data from the creep detection circuit; and
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
a creep detection circuit configured to detect a threshold amount of creep within the socket (Figs. 5 & 21; [Abstract], [0004], [0020]-[0025], [0027]-[0031], & [0058]: teaches a connection device with a detection circuit (120, 220, 320) that detects the state of connection between connectors, detecting shifts in bias values to determine if pins are mated), wherein one or more of the plurality of pins are creep detection pins coupled to the creep detection circuit (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0020]-0031] & [Claim 1]: teaches a socket connection detection device incorporating a detection circuit to monitor connection loss (creep), utilizing specific pins coupled directly to the creep detection circuit);
a controller configured to receive data from the creep detection circuit (Figs. 1, 2 & 11; [Abstract], [0008]-[0010], [0027]-[0028], [0030], [0033], [0040], [0054]-[0055], [0058], [Claim 1], [Claim 12], & [Claim 13]: teaches a processing unit (controller) connected to the detection circuit); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hsieh’s connection detection circuit, pins, and controller logic into Kong’s module and socket assembly, utilizing Kong’s existing persistent storage subsystem to log the detection data, as a predictable variation of known electrical monitoring systems. The combination of Kong and Hsieh teaches or suggests the system including a creep detection circuit, creep detection pins, a controller receiving data from the circuit, and a database storing related data. Kong discloses the core system comprising a module 202, PCB 204, socket 228, pins 230, and storage subsystem 680 acting as a database to store system data but lacks the specific detection circuitry. Hsieh teaches an electrical connection detection circuit 120 coupled to detection pins (DP1/DP2) that detects physical connection shifts exceeding a threshold, alongside a controller (processor 130) receiving this detection data. The motivation for this modification is to provide a persistent, trackable diagnostic record of socket integrity over time, actively monitoring the mechanical and structural integrity of the compression socket, enabling administrators to analyze historical creep data, the system is able to detect a threshold amount of mechanical creep (e.g., detection pins begin to lose contact), and implement predictive maintenance before catastrophic hardware failure occurs. Providing an early warning system, allowing a controller to flag a hardware degradation event before the primary data signal pins fail. The modification represents the application of a known technique (Hsieh’s connection monitoring circuit) to a known device ready for improvement (Kong’s compression socket) to yield the predictable result of self-monitoring memory sock assembly with improved reliability and fault-detection capabilities (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Kong, teaches:
The system of claim 8 ([Abstract], [0023], & [0026]-[0028]), wherein the data stored in the database ([0062]) comprises resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit.
Kong, is silent in regard to:
comprises resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
comprises resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0008]-[0010], [0027]-[0029], [0033]-[0037], [0039]-[0040], [0043]-[0045], [0049], [0052], [Claim 18], & [Claim 19]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Kong’s storage subsystem to store the electrical resistance measurements (bias values) generated by Hsieh’s detection circuit as a predictable variation of known data logging techniques. The combination of Kong and Hsieh teaches or suggests the system wherein the data stored in the database comprises resistance measurements associated with the creep detection circuit. Kong discloses a system equipped with a database, specifically a storage subsystem 680 comprising storage devices 684, that persistently stores data 686. Hsieh teaches a creep detection circuit utilizing a bias voltage generator 110 and resistors R1 to R4 to monitor bias values VB1 to VB4 on detection pins DP1 to DP4, which perform electrical resistance measurements to verify if a connection loop is formed or creeping open. The motivation for this modification is to maintain a persistent historical log of the socket’s electrical contact resistance, providing the benefit of tracking physical creep degradation over time to enable predictive maintenance prior to catastrophic hardware failure. When certain thresholds and/or bias values are reached, the resistance of the connection loop shifts (e.g., breaking the circuit or dropping below/above a measurable threshold), triggering Hsieh’s circuit to alert the system before signal loss occurs, according to known methods, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claims 10-11 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Hsieh, in view of Patel, and further in view of Tyrrell et al. (US 2020/0259298 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 13, 2020, hereinafter, Tyrrell).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Kong, teaches:
The system of claim 8 ([Abstract], [0023], & [0026]-[0028]), wherein the PCB includes (Figs. 2a & 2b; [0023]-[0029] & [0053]: teaches the PCB and the socket)
Kong, is silent in regard to:
multiple creep detection circuits associated with the socket, wherein each creep detection circuit is configured to monitor downstop creep in an area of the socket proximate to each creep detection circuit.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
multiple creep detection circuits associated with the socket (Figs. 5 & 21; [Abstract], [0004], [0020]-[0025], [0027]-[0031], [0054], & [0058]: teaches the creep detection circuit, duplicating a sensor circuit to provide multiple detection points across a large PCB footprint is a design choice), wherein each creep detection circuit is configured to monitor downstop creep in an area of the socket proximate to each creep detection circuit (Figs. 5 & 21; [Abstract], [0004], [0020]-[0025], [0027]-[0031], [0054], & [0058]: discloses a device 200 utilizing multiple detection circuits (220_1/220_2) to independently monitor connection states, positioning detection pins (DP1/DP2) at opposite physical extremities (E1/E2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Hsieh’s multiple discrete detection circuits and localized pin placements to the Kong and Patel socket assembly as a predictable variation of known electrical monitoring techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh teaches or suggests the method wherein the PCB includes multiple creep detection circuits associated with the socket, wherein each creep detection circuit is configured to monitor downstop creep in an area of the socket proximate to it. While Kong and Patel establish the mechanical socket and downstops, Hsieh discloses a device 200 utilizing multiple detection circuits (220_1/220_2) to independently monitor connection states, positioning detection pins (DP1/DP2) at opposite physical extremities (E1/E2) to assess localized mechanical engagement. The motivation for this modification is to improve diagnostic accuracy and system reliability by enabling the system to pinpoint the exact physical location of mechanical yielding or uneven, asymmetric creep across a large multi-pin socket interface (KSR).
Regarding independent claim 11, Kong, teaches:
A method ([Abstract], [0023], & [0026]-[0028])
Kong, is silent in regard to:
for socket downstop creep detection using a creep detection and reaction module, the method comprising:
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Kong in view of Hsieh and Patel, implementing Patel’s PIC supports 64 which constitute the downstop creep (Figs. 4 & 5; [Abstract], [0008], [0010], [0055]-[0056], & [0064]: teaches a communication jack with a PIC support that acts as a mechanical stop, description states the PIC supports are positioned to control the PIC bend radius and limit the PIC displacement and prevent plastic deformation).
for socket downstop creep detection using a creep detection and reaction module, the method comprising ([Abstract], [0002], [0006], [0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0028], [0031], [0033]-[0037], [0054], [0058], [Claim 1], [Claim 3], & [Claim 13]: teaches a method for detection using a creep detection circuit/device/module):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hsieh’s connection detection circuit (120) and detection pins (DP1/DP2) into the modified Kong/Patel connector as a predictable variation of known electronic monitoring techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh teaches or suggests the method steps of utilizing a creep detection circuit and creep detection pins to detect socket downstop creep based on resistance value changes crossing a threshold amount. The modified Kong, Patel assembly provides the mechanical socket but lacks a dedicated circuit utilizing specific pins to detect physical creep or partial disconnection. Hsieh discloses a connection detection circuit (120) coupled to dedicated detection pins (DP1/DP2) that monitors electrical resistance changes, represented as bias values (VB1/VB2) to detect physical shifts and determine if a connection has loosened past a threshold. The motivation to combine these teachings is to actively monitor the physical integrity of the socket connection in real-time, avoiding malfunction of the electronic device caused by improper or creeping electrical connections (KSR).
Kong, and Hsieh, are silent in regard to:
enabling a current source, configured to send current at a constant rate, on a creep detection circuit coupled to one or more creep detection pins within a printed circuit board (PCB) socket coupled to a module;
tracking one or more resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit; and
detecting socket downstop creep associated with the module based on determining that the one or more resistance values have changed by more than a threshold amount, wherein the one or more resistance values are determined from one or more voltages measured across the creep detection circuit and the constant rate.
However, Tyrrell, further teaches:
enabling a current source, configured to send current at a constant rate, on a creep detection circuit coupled to one or more creep detection pins within a printed circuit board (PCB) socket coupled to a module ([0045] & [0059]);
tracking one or more resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit ([0065]); and
The Examiner is combining Kong and Hsieh in view of Tyrrell, implementing Hsieh’s bias values detected socket downstop creep which constitute the threshold amount of the one or more resistance values ([0028])
detecting socket downstop creep associated with the module based on determining that the one or more resistance values have changed by more than a threshold amount ([0065]), wherein the one or more resistance values are determined from one or more voltages measured across the creep detection circuit and the constant rate ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Tyrrell’s constant-current measurement technique into the Kong, Patel, Hsieh assembly as a substitution of known electrical monitoring circuits. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh in view of Tyrrell teaches or suggests a method for socket downstop creep detection utilizing a constant current source to track resistance values and detect threshold changes based on measured voltages. While the Kong, Patel, and Hsieh combination provides the structural creep detection architecture, it lacks utilizing a dedicated constant current source to measure voltage and mathematically derive the circuit resistance. Tyrrell discloses an electrical detection circuit that enables a constant current source (e.g., I1a providing a 1 µA current) on connector pins and repeatedly measures the resulting voltage to determine instantaneous conduction resistance via Ohm’s law. The motivation for this modification is to improve the accuracy and reliability of the creep detection system by establishing a high stable electrical reference, allowing the controller to calculate precise resistance changes over time and isolate mechanical yielding from random voltage fluctuations.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 11 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], [0056]-[0064], [0066], [0068], & [0070]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein the detecting of the socket downstop creep associated with the module is based on the one or more resistance values decreasing by a threshold amount.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Kong in view of Hsieh and Patel, implementing Patel’s PIC supports 64 which constitute the downstop creep (Figs. 4 & 5; [Abstract], [0008], [0010], [0055]-[0056], & [0064]: teaches a communication jack with a PIC support that acts as a mechanical stop, description states the PIC supports are positioned to control the PIC bend radius and limit the PIC displacement and prevent plastic deformation).
wherein the detecting of the socket downstop creep associated with the module ([Abstract], [0002], [0006], [0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0028], [0031], [0033]-[0037], [0054], [0058], [Claim 1], [Claim 3], & [Claim 13]: teaches a method for detection using a creep detection circuit/device/module):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hsieh’s connection detection circuit (120) and detection pins (DP1/DP2) into the modified Kong/Patel connector as a predictable variation of known electronic monitoring techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh teaches or suggests the method steps of utilizing a creep detection circuit and creep detection pins to detect socket downstop creep based on resistance value changes crossing a threshold amount. The modified Kong, Patel assembly provides the mechanical socket but lacks a dedicated circuit utilizing specific pins to detect physical creep or partial disconnection. Hsieh discloses a connection detection circuit (120) coupled to dedicated detection pins (DP1/DP2) that monitors electrical resistance changes, represented as bias values (VB1/VB2) to detect physical shifts and determine if a connection has loosened past a threshold. The motivation to combine these teachings is to actively monitor the physical integrity of the socket connection in real-time, avoiding malfunction of the electronic device caused by improper or creeping electrical connections (KSR).
However, Tyrrell, further teaches:
is based on the one or more resistance values decreasing by a threshold amount ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the Kong, Patel, and Hsieh creep detection circuit to trigger based on a decrease in resistance, as taught by Tyrrell, as a predictable variation of known electrical monitoring parameters. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Tyrrell teaches or suggests the method wherein detecting socket downstop creep is based on one or more resistance values decreasing by a threshold amount. While the Kong, Patel, and Hsieh framework detects physical creep leading to open-circuit disconnections, it lacks triggering an alarm based on a decreased in resistance. Tyrrell discloses a diagnostic circuit that tracks conduction resistance and verifies a fault condition when the resistance, and its corresponding voltage, decreases below a predetermined threshold due to an unintended conduction path. The motivation for this modification is to expand the socket’s diagnostic capabilities to detect short-circuit creep failures, such as a yielding downstop causing a pin to over-compress into an unintended conductive shield or adjacent pad, providing protection against all mechanical failure modes (KSR).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Hsieh, in view of Patel, in view of Tyrrell, in view of Lin, and further in view of Klein et al. (US 2014/0152449 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 5, 2014, hereinafter, Klein).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 11 ([Abstract], [0023], & [0026]-[0028]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein tracking the one or more resistance values includes, iteratively at a set interval:
measuring the one or more voltages across the creep detection circuit; and
calculating, based on the one or more voltages, the one or more resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit.
However, Klein, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Kong, Hsieh, Patel, and Tyrrell, in view of Lin and Klein, implementing Lin’s predetermined period of time to elapse in step 62, then in step 63, measurements from the voltage diagnostic sense line Vdiag being collected ([Col. 7, ll. 38-67]).
wherein tracking the one or more resistance values includes, iteratively at a set interval ([0009], [0016], [0019], [0023], [Claim 6], [Claim 11], & [Claim 18]):
measuring the one or more voltages across the creep detection circuit ([0009], [0016], [0019], [0023], [Claim 6], [Claim 11], & [Claim 18]); and
calculating, based on the one or more voltages, the one or more resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit ([0008]-[0009], [0023], [0026], [0030]-[0031], [0037]-[0038], [0042], [Claim 1], & [Claim 11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the iterative voltage monitoring system of Lin with the continuous resistance calculation and tracking methodology of Klein as a substitution and predictable variation of known electrical diagnostic techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Lin in view of Kelin teaches or suggests the method wherein tracking resistance values includes iteratively, at a set interval, measuring voltage across the circuit and calculating the associated resistance based on that voltage. While the combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Lin teaches iteratively measuring diagnostic voltages at a predetermined period of time to detect a loose connection, it does not detail mathematically calculating and tracking resistance values over time based on those raw voltage measurements. Klein discloses utilizing a microprocessor and data logger to store voltage versus time information and mathematically calculating the circuit’s resistance based on the measured voltage. The motivation for this modification is to quantify and log the physical degradation of the socker over its service life, improving the system’s predictive maintenance capabilities rather than relying on raw momentary voltage spikes (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 12 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
further comprising storing the one or more resistance values each time they are determined.
However, Klein, further teaches:
further comprising storing the one or more resistance values each time they are determined (Fig. 5; [0016], [0019], [0029], [0040], & [Claim 6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the data logger and storage methodology of Klein into the iterative detection system of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Lin as a predictable variation of known electrical diagnostic tracking techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Lin in view of Klein teaches or suggests the method for socket downstop creep detection further comprising storing the one or more resistance values each time they are determined. While the combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Lin discloses iteratively measuring diagnostic voltages across a creeping mechanical downstop socket over time, it does not detail storing the calculated resistance values in a database or memory upon each iterative determination. Klein discloses utilizing a microprocessor (150/530) and a data logger or storage device (535) to continuously store electrical condition data, such as voltage and the corresponding calculated resistance, over time for later retrieval. The motivation for this modification is to maintain a continuous historical record of the mechanical socket’s physical degradation over its service life, allowing for predictive maintenance and post-failure analysis (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 11 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein determining that the one or more resistance values have changed by more than the threshold amount includes comparing the one or more resistance values to previously recorded resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit.
However, Klein, further teaches:
wherein determining that the one or more resistance values have changed by more than the threshold amount (Fig. 6; [0025] & [0042]: Step 640) includes comparing the one or more resistance values to previously recorded resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit (Fig. 6; [0025] & [0042]: Step 660).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the historical data comparison methodology of Klein into the iterative detection system of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Lin as a predictable variation of known electrical diagnostic tracking techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Lin in view of Klein teaches or suggests the method wherein determining that the one or more resistance values have changed by more than the threshold amount includes comparing the one or more resistance values to previously recorded resistance values associated with the creep detection circuit. While the base combination teaches iteratively measuring diagnostic voltages to detect connection creep, it does not detail mathematically comparing newly calculated resistance metrics against a historical baseline stored in memory. Klein discloses utilizing a microprocessor (150/530) to store electrical condition data in a data logger (535) and continuously determining whether the resistance of the structure increases over time in response to changing conditions (Fig. 6; Step 660), which inherently requires comparing current iterative values against previously recorded values. The motivation for this modification is to quantify the precise magnitude of mechanical creep degradation over the socket’s service life, enabling maintenance before a connection failure occurs (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 11 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
further comprising generating a notification responsive to detecting socket downstop creep associated with the module.
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Kong in view of Hsieh and Klein, implementing Klein’s alarm connected to the microprocessor that is activated when voltage in the circuit exceeds a threshold value ([0008]-[0009], [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0024], [0027], [0042], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 11], & [Claim 17]).
further comprising generating a notification ([0055]-[0056])
The Examiner is combining Kong in view of Hsieh and Patel, implementing Patel’s PIC supports 64 which constitute the downstop creep (Figs. 4 & 5; [Abstract], [0008], [0010], [0055]-[0056], & [0064]: teaches a communication jack with a PIC support that acts as a mechanical stop, description states the PIC supports are positioned to control the PIC bend radius and limit the PIC displacement and prevent plastic deformation).
responsive to detecting socket downstop creep associated with the module ([Abstract], [0002], [0006], [0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0028], [0031], [0033]-[0037], [0054], [0058], [Claim 1], [Claim 3], [Claim 13], [Claim 18] & [Claim 19]: teaches that the detection device(s)/module(s) provide(s) a “first detection signal” directly in response to the bias value shifting, indicating the connection has been lost/degraded due to creep. A POSITA understands that a hardware controller outputting a discrete fault signal constitutes generating a notification to the broader system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hsieh’s notification generation mechanism into the monitored Kong and Patel socket assembly as a substitution of known electrical alert techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, and Hsieh teaches or suggests the method further comprising generating a notification responsive to detecting socket downstop creep associated with the module. While Kong and Patel establish the mechanical socket assembly equipped with downstops, Hsieh discloses an alarm element (240) configured to generate a notification such as an alarm light (LA), alarm sound (AA), or communication message (MA) in direct response to a processor (130) receiving a detection signal (SD2) indicating a shifted or incomplete physical connection. The motivation for this modification is to alert system operators to critical mechanical yielding in the socket, facilitating maintenance before the physical creep results in complete connection failure or hardware damage (KSR).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Patel, in view of Hsieh, in view of Tyrrell, in view of Klein, and further in view of Svennebring et al. (US 2023/0362082 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 9, 2023, hereinafter, Svennebring).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 11 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], [0056]-[0064], [0066], [0068], & [0070]: teaches a module processing computational workloads),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
further comprising, responsive to detecting the socket downstop creep,
However, Hsieh, further teaches:
further comprising, responsive to detecting the socket downstop creep ([Abstract], [0002], [0006], [0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0028], [0031], [0033]-[0037], [0054], [0058], [Claim 1], [Claim 3], [Claim 13], [Claim 18], & [Claim 19]: generates a definitive detection signal when the mechanical failure threshold is reached, prompting a system response),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to execute the detection method of Hsieh upon the socket assembly of Kong and Patel, and to further configure the method to generate a notification responsive to detecting the creep, as taught by Hsieh. Hsieh teaches the step of monitoring the measured electrical value shifts by the threshold amount, indicating that the physical connection loop has been compromised by mechanical creep. The detection device provides a “first detection signal.” A POSITA would be motivated to utilize this detection signal as a system notification (e.g., triggering a hardware interrupt, logging a critical event in the controller, or flashing a diagnostic LED). Generating a notification in response to Hsieh’s detection signal yields the predictable result of alerting the system administrator or the operating system that the socket’s downstops have crept to a critical failure point, according to known methods. Allowing safe data migration and preventative hardware replacement before damaging other electronics on the PCB (e.g., memory signals) and yield predictable results (KSR).
Kong, and Hsieh, are silent in regard to:
shifting workload away from an area experiencing the socket downstop creep.
However, Svennebring, further teaches:
shifting workload away from an area experiencing the socket downstop creep ([Abstract], [0030], [0032], [0038], [0041]-[0042], [0045], [0087], [0101]-[0103], [0108]-[0110], [0156], [0233], [0237], [Claim 10] & [Claim 11]: teaches managing computational workloads (virtual machines, containers) in server computing systems in response to hardware performance/link metrics. A POSITA understands that migrating VMs/containers away from a degraded hardware link constitutes shifting workload).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Svennebring’s workload shifting methodology into the monitoring socket assembly of the base combination as a predictable variation of known automated hardware remediation techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Klein in view of Svennebring teaches or suggests the method further comprising, responsive to detecting the socket downstop creep, shifting workload away from an area experiencing the socket downstop creep. While the base combination teaches detecting physical degradation and creep in a socket, it does not detail automatically migrating compute tasks away from the failing hardware. Svennebring discloses dynamically shifting workloads and transferring application instances from a source server experiencing degraded conditions to a target server. The motivation for this modification is to redirect computational workloads (e.g., migrating the VMs or virtualization containers) away from physically degrading hardware before a total connection failure occurs, preventing data loss and maintaining uninterrupted system availability, the system administrator ensures zero downtime and prevents catastrophic failures (e.g., data corruption), according to know methods, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 16 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026], [0028], [0056]-[0064], [0066], [0068] & [0070]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein the workload is shifted to one of: another core on the module, another processor on the module, and another module.
However, Svennebring, further teaches:
wherein the workload is shifted to one of ([0045] & [0108]-[0110]):
The Examiner is combining Kong in view of Svennebring, implementing Kong’s processors, cores, and modules ([0026], [0056]-[0058], [0062]-[0063], [0066], [0068], & [0070]).
another core on the module, another processor on the module ([0070] & [0124]-[0125]), and another module ([Abstract], [0003], [0030], [0032], [0038], [0041]-[0046], [0067], [0086]-[0087], [0101]-[0103], [0108]-[0110], [0156], [0232]-[0233], [0237], [Claim 10], & [Claim 11]]: teaches managing and shifting computational workloads (Virtual Machines, containers) across “server computing systems” and “cloud compute nodes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Svennebring’s workload shifting destinations to the modular multi-chip and multi-processor computing architecture of Kong as a substitution of known virtualization routing parameters. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, and Klein in view of Svennebring teaches or suggests the method wherein the workload is shifted to one of another core on the module, another processor on the module, and another module. While the base combination teaches detecting socket downstop creep and triggering a response, Svennebring discloses the workload offloading framework that shifts computational tasks across hardware destinations including different processor cores, multi-core application processors, and discrete target server modules to mitigate system degradation. The motivation for this predictable variation is to optimize localized hardware fault tolerance by dynamically routing critical processing tasks to healthy, unaffected computing resources adjacent to or networked with the failing mechanical socket, thereby maintaining computing efficiency and mitigating complete system failure. A POSITA working on an enterprise server environment understands that computing hardware is organized hierarchically into cores, processors, and modules (or nodes). If a specific memory channel or socket link is experiencing creep, the system must shift the workload to a hardware resource that does not rely on that failing link. Therefore, it is a predictable, standard operational procedure, of executing Svennebring’s VM migration to shift the workload to healthy, unaffected source. Executing the workload shift to another one of the three standard computing destinations yields the predictable results of maintaining system uptime and protecting data integrity despite the localized mechanical failure of the socket downstop(s), according to known methods, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Patel, in view of Hsieh, in view of Tyrrell, in view of Klein, in view of Svennebring, and further in view of Britton.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 11 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], [0056]-[0064], [0066], [0068], & [0070]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
further comprising generating a strain map across the module using the one or more resistance values.
However, Britton, further teaches:
further comprising generating a strain map across the module ([Abstract], [0010], [0026], [0028], [0036], [0050], & [Claim 5]) using the one or more resistance values ([0006], [0020], [0028], [0036], [0049]-[0050], & [Claim 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Britton’s spatial strain imaging capabilities to the multi-pin resistance tracking system of the base combination as a predictable variation of known piezoresistive mapping techniques. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, Klein, and Svennebring in view of Briton teaches or suggests the method further comprising generating a strain map across the module using the one or more resistance values. While the base combination teaches tracking electrical resistance across multiple pins to detect localized downstop creep, it does not detail compiling those discrete resistance values to generate a comprehensive spatial map of the strain across the entire hardware module. Britton discloses utilizing a spatially distributed array of resistive components to measure, calculate, and image a position-resolved strain profile across a structural element based on changes in electrical resistance. The motivation for this modification is to visualize the precise distribution and magnitude of physical stress gradients across the entire socket interface, enabling operators to identify uneven mechanical loading and mitigate structural anomalies before localized creep cascades into a catastrophic hardware failure (KSR).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong, in view of Hsieh, in view of Patel, in view of Tyrrell, and further in view of Lin.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Kong, teaches:
The method of claim 11 ([Abstract], [0023], [0026]-[0028], [0056]-[0064], [0066], [0068], & [0070]),
Kong, is silent in regard to:
wherein the detecting of the socket downstop creep associated with the module is based on the one or more resistance values exceeding a threshold amount.
However, Lin, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Kong and Hsieh in view of Patel and Lin, implementing Patel’s PIC supports 64 which constitute the downstop creep (Figs. 4 & 5; [Abstract], [0008], [0010], [0055]-[0056], & [0064]: teaches a communication jack with a PIC support that acts as a mechanical stop, description states the PIC supports are positioned to control the PIC bend radius and limit the PIC displacement and prevent plastic deformation).
wherein the detecting of the socket downstop creep associated with the module ([Col. 7, ll. 17-37]):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Lin’s threshold-based loose connection detection logic into the downstop-equipped socket of Patel as a predictable variation of known electrical monitoring techniques. The combination of Patel and Lin teaches or suggests the method wherein detecting socket downstop creep is based on an electrical value exceeding a predefined threshold value. While Patel discloses a mechanical socket utilizing downstops (PIC supports 64) to control pin deformation and limit displacement, it lacks an active electrical mechanism to detect when these mating components physically loosen or creep over time. Lin teaches an electrical diagnostic system designed to detect a “loose connection” (i.e., creeping or backing off) before a total disconnection by monitoring a diagnostic sense line to determine if an open-circuit value is greater than a predetermined threshold (T1). The motivation for this combination is to detect the mechanical yielding or creeping of the socket components before a critical loss of electrical connection occurs, providing a reliable early warning to the user to service the device and improve overall hardware safety (KSR).
However, Tyrrell, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Kong and Hsieh in view of Tyrrell and Lin, implementing Lin’s determination made over the measurement from the voltage diagnostic sense line being greater than a voltage threshold (T1) ([Col. 7, ll. 47-54]).
is based on the one or more resistance values exceeding a threshold amount ([0059] & [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the Kong/Patel/Hsieh detection system to monitor for calculated resistance values mathematically exceeding a maximum threshold, as taught by Tyrrell and Lin, as a predictable variation of known electrical monitoring parameters. The combination of Kong, Patel, Hsieh, Tyrrell, and Lin teaches or suggests the method wherein detecting socket downstop creep is based on one or more resistance values exceeding a threshold value. While the Kong, Patel, and Hsieh framework detects physical creep leading to a disconnected open-circuit state, it lacks the methodology to quantitatively track this disconnection as a calculated resistance exceeding a predefined maximum threshold. Tyrrell teaches utilizing an electrical diagnostic circuit utilizing a constant current source (I1a/I2a) to calculate instantaneous conduction resistance via Ohm’s law, noting that an open circuit causes the voltage and thus the resistance to rise instantaneously to a maximum level. While Lin teaches detecting a “loose connection” (i.e., creep) by determining when this open-circuit diagnostic value is greater than a predetermined voltage threshold. The motivation for this modification is to quantify the physical degradation of the socket connection over time, allowing the system to differentiate between minor acceptable resistance fluctuations, early warning of mechanical loosening before a critical loss of power to the module and contact pressure that exists, prior to a total failure (KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 September 22, 2026
/SON T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
