DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication filed on 8/11/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17, 19, and 20 are pending, of which claims 1 and 12 are in independent form.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandisk Press Release ‘SanDisk Outs its First 2-in-1 Flash Drive for Transfers Between iPhone and USB-C Devices’ (hereinafter referred to as Sandisk) in view of Beck, U.S. Patent Application 2010/0190379 (hereinafter referred to as Beck), further in view of Phone-In Ltd., UK Patent Application GB 2516993 A (hereinafter referred to as Phone-In).
Referring to claim 1, Sandisk discloses “A connection structure, comprising:
a housing” (last page is a zoomed in version of the image provided on page 1. The picture and the first paragraph teach a flash drive with an ‘all metal casing’ with both Lightning and USB Type-C connectors); “an interface member, wherein at least a portion of the interface member extends from a first side wall of the housing to an outside of the housing to be connected with an interface of an electronic device” (The picture and the first paragraph teach a flash drive with an ‘all metal casing’ with both Lightning and USB Type-C connectors “for users to seamlessly access and move files between iPhone, iPad Pro, Mac and other USB Type-C devices, including Android phones”); “and a blocking portion, wherein the blocking portion is arranged on the first side wall of the housing, the blocking portion extends from the first side wall towards the outside of the housing and surrounds an intersection of the interface member and the first side wall” (The picture shows an extension portion between the main casing and the connectors, which extends from the side wall towards the outside of the housing and surrounds an intersection of the connector and the side wall); “wherein the blocking portion comprises: a second side wall protruding from the first side wall and a surface facing away from the first side wall” (The picture shows an extension portion between the main casing and the connectors, which extends from the side wall towards the outside of the housing and surrounds an intersection of the connector and the side wall. The extension portion has a second side wall protruding from the main casing side wall as well as a surface facing away from the side wall).
Sandisk does not appear to explicitly disclose “along a direction extending from the first side wall to the surface of the blocking portion, a cross-sectional area of the blocking portion gradually decreases.”
However, Beck discloses another device with a connector for communication with another device ([0015] “Connector 12 also includes a plug 20, which mates with a receptacle in a second device (not shown) and which facilitates communication between the first device and the second device”) wherein “along a direction extending from the first side wall to the surface of the blocking portion, a cross-sectional area of the blocking portion gradually decreases” ([0005] overmold that substantially covers the connector body. Figures and claims 4 and 15, the overmold has a tapered configuration. The tapered edge of the overmold where the connector protrudes has a cross-sectional area that gradually decreases).
Sandisk and Beck are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is electronic devices with connectors, their housing, and means for connecting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sandisk and Beck before him or her, to modify the teachings of Sandisk to include the teachings of Beck so that along a direction extending from the first side wall to the surface of the blocking portion, a cross-sectional area of the blocking portion gradually decreases.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide strain relief to the conductive cable that extends from the connector by protecting the conductive cable from bending or pulling forces that may damage conductive cable (as stated by Beck at [0016]).
Neither Sandisk nor Beck appears to explicitly disclose “the second side wall is configured to be at least partially received in an opening of a protective case that encases the electronic device.”
However, Phone-In teaches another USB connector wherein “the second side wall is configured to be at least partially received in an opening of a protective case that encases the electronic device” (Figures 1 and 3. Page 1 discussion of Figure 3 “A microUSB connector is shown in the example as this is currently the most common connector, although other connectors could be used. The body of the plug is also tapered in the image; this streamlining would allow the transformer to be connected to devices that may be wearing a protective case.” Page 2 lines 11 - 12 “The output end is a micro USB B plug with a tapered protective surround (fig 3).” Page 2 6th bullet “The micro USB B plug surround will be tapered, allowing the Timed AC Charger to connect to devices which may be in a protective case”).
Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is electronic devices with connectors, their housing, and means for connecting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In before him or her, to modify the teachings of Sandisk and Beck to include the teachings of Phone-In so that the second side wall is configured to be at least partially received in an opening of a protective case that encases the electronic device.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow to properly connect to devices which may be in a protective case (as stated by Phone-In at Page 2 6th bullet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Phone-In with Sandisk and Beck to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 4, Sandisk teaches “the interface member is one of: a Type-C interface, a lightning interface, a Micro USB interface, and a MiniUSB interface” (last page is a zoomed in version of the image provided on page 1. The picture and the first paragraph teach a flash drive with an ‘all metal casing’ with both Lightning and USB Type-C connectors).
Also, Phone-In teaches “the interface member is one of: a Type-C interface, a lightning interface, a Micro USB interface, and a MiniUSB interface” (Page 1 discussion of Figure 3 “A microUSB connector is shown in the example as this is currently the most common connector, although other connectors could be used).
As per claim 9, Phone-In discloses “a cross section of the blocking portion, taken along a plane that is perpendicular to the surface of the blocking portion is trapezoidal” (Figures 1 and 3. Page 1 discussion of Figure 3 “A microUSB connector is shown in the example as this is currently the most common connector, although other connectors could be used. The body of the plug is also tapered in the image; this streamlining would allow the transformer to be connected to devices that may be wearing a protective case.” Page 2 lines 11 - 12 “The output end is a micro USB B plug with a tapered protective surround (fig 3).” Page 2 6th bullet “The micro USB B plug surround will be tapered, allowing the Timed AC Charger to connect to devices which may be in a protective case”).
As per claim 10, Beck discloses “connection between the second side wall of the blocking portion and the surface of the blocking portion away from the housing is a curved surface” (Figures 3 – 6 show the side wall of the blocking portion connecting to the ‘away’ surface of the blocking portion is a curved surface).
Referring to claim 12, claim 1 recites the corresponding limitations as that of claim 12. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 12.
Further, Sandisk discloses “A portable storage device, comprising: a body portion”; and the connection structure of claim 1; and “the body portion is arranged inside the housing of the connection structure” (The picture and second paragraph teach a portable storage device with housing, connectors, and a body portion. The second paragraph teaches flash memory of the device as well as files being saved on the drive).
Note, claim 15 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore, the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 15.
Note, claim 19 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 10. Therefore, the rejection of claim 10 applies to claim 19.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandisk in view of Beck, further in view of Phone-In, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Office Depot ‘SanDisk iXpand Flash Drive Luxe For iPhone and USB Type-C Devices, 64GB, Gunmetal’ (hereinafter referred to as Office Depot).
As per claims 2 and 3, the Sandisk Press Release and small photo is unclear in showing the blocking portion’s height.
However, Office Depot shows the exact same device in greater detail. Office Depot teaches “a height of the blocking portion extending towards the outside of the housing is not less than 1.6 millimeters” (Figures show a substantial bumpout blocking portion surrounding the intersection of the interface member and the first side wall. This blocking portion is substantial when compared to the uncovered segment of the USB Type-C interface).
Further, the “Universal Serial Bus Type-C Cable and Connector Specification - Revision 1.2” is provided as an evidentiary reference to show that the uncovered portion of the USB Type-C interface is a minimum of 6 mm (Fig. 3-9).
Thus, when comparing the covered portion of the Office Depot USB Type C connector with the blocking portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to design a device wherein “a height of the blocking portion extending towards the outside of the housing is not less than 1.6 millimeters” and/or “the height of the blocking portion extending towards the outside of the housing is 1.6 millimeters.”
Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and Office Depot are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is electronic devices with connectors, their housing, and means for connecting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and Office Depot before him or her, to modify the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to include the teachings of Office Depot so that the height of the blocking portion extending towards the outside of the housing is not less than 1.6 millimeters and/or the height of the blocking portion extending towards the outside of the housing is 1.6 millimeters.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for a more structurally sound device and for an aesthetic look when connected to a device (as seen in the Figure on page 3 of Office Depot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Office Depot with Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Note that ‘Office Depot iXpand Reviews’ is provided with an exploded view of the reviews on the Office Depot product page. This review section shows reviews back to ‘5 years ago.’ This dating of reviews shows the Office Depot product page being prior to Applicant’s filing.
This can be confirmed at the url https://www.officedepot.com/a/products/9218194/SanDisk-iXpand-Flash-Drive-Luxe-For/
As per claim 11, Office Depot’s larger and clearer pictures show “the blocking portion and the housing are configured as an integral and one-piece structure; the blocking portion is formed by a portion of the first side wall of the housing protruding outwardly” (see the second picture on page 2 with both connectors open. The bumpout blocking portion is formed by a portion of the device’s side wall).
As above, Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and Office Depot are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is electronic devices with connectors, their housing, and means for connecting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and Office Depot before him or her, to modify the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to include the teachings of Office Depot so that the blocking portion and the housing are an integral and one-piece structure.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for a more structurally sound device and for an aesthetic look when connected to a device (as seen in the Figure on page 3 of Office Depot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Office Depot with Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Note, claim 13 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies to claim 13.
Note, claim 14 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies to claim 14.
Note, claim 20 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 11. Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 applies to claim 20.
Claims 5, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandisk, in view of Beck, further in view of Phone-In, as applied to claims above, and further in view of “Universal Serial Bus Type-C Cable and Connector Specification - Revision 1.2” (hereinafter referred to as USB).
As per claim 5, Sandisk discloses “the interface member is the Type-C interface, the interface member comprises a snapping segment that is not surrounded by the blocking portion” (see Figures on page 2, exposed portion of Type-C interface not covered by the bumpout blocking portion).
Sandisk does not appear to explicitly disclose “the snapping segment has an extension height of not less than 6.5 millimeters.”
However, USB teaches “the snapping segment has an extension height of not less than” 6 “millimeters” (Fig. 3-9 6 mm minimum for the exposed section).
Also, note that USB teaches a minimum of 6 mm along with a tip of the connector that is not included in this measurement. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a system of Sandisk and USB so that “the snapping segment has an extension height of not less than 6.5 millimeters.”
Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and USB are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is electronic devices with connectors, their housing, and means for connecting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and USB before him or her, to modify the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to include the teachings of USB so that the exposed snapping segment has an extension height of not less than 6.5 millimeters.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for a device capable of properly connecting with a device, such as a phone/tablet (as seen in the picture of Sandisk). One would be motivated to follow the specification of the USB Type C since this connection is being used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine USB with Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 7, Sandisk discloses “a width of the blocking portion” (the bumpout blocking portion can be seen in the picture. This blocking portion has a width that is less than the width of the device housing end).
Sandisk does not appear to explicitly disclose “a width of the blocking portion is less than 12 millimeters.”
However, USB teaches “a width of the blocking portion is less than 12 millimeters” (page 53 shell opening is 8.34mm, page 44 shows structure around the connector is roughly 20% extra (8.34 x .20 ~ 10mm). Figure 3-1 receptacle width of 8.34. Figure 3-9 shows plug 12.35 max).
Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and USB are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is electronic devices with connectors, their housing, and means for connecting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and USB before him or her, to modify the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to include the teachings of USB so that the width of the blocking portion is less than 12 millimeters.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for a device capable of properly connecting with a device, such as a phone/tablet (as seen in the picture of Sandisk). One would be motivated to follow the specification of the USB Type C since this connection is being used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine USB with Sandisk, Beck, and Phone-In to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Note, claim 16 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 applies to claim 16.
Note, claim 17 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 7. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 applies to claim 17.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandisk, in view of Beck, further in view of Phone-In, further in view of USB, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hoffman et al., U.S. Patent Application 2021/0067663 (hereinafter referred to as Hoffman).
As per claim 6, Sandisk and USB teach “a height of the snapping segment” (Sandisk picture, USB Fig. 3-9) and “a depth of the interface of the electronic device” (USB page 32 receptacle depth, page 53 receptacle) and “a thickness of the protective case that covers the electronic device” (Sandisk picture).
Neither Sandisk nor Beck nor Phone-In nor USB appears to explicitly disclose “a height of the snapping segment is greater than or equal to a depth of the interface of the electronic device and is less than a sum of the depth of the interface of the electronic device and a thickness of a protective case that covers the electronic device.”
However, Hoffman teaches “a height of the snapping segment is greater than or equal to a depth of the interface of the electronic device and is less than a sum of the depth of the interface of the electronic device and a thickness of a protective case that covers the electronic device” ([0021] The device attachment may couple to the device even when a protective case is around the device and facilitating “coupling of the device attachment to the device regardless of a protective case (if any) around the device. In this regard, the connector block may be adjusted as appropriate to accommodate devices and associated protective cases of various thicknesses. The term device may refer to the device by itself or the device together with a protective case around the device. As such, the phrase “a thickness of a device” may refer to a thickness of the device by itself or a sum of a thickness of the device and a thickness of a protective case around the device”).
Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, USB, and Hoffman are analogous art because Sandisk and Hoffman are from the same field of endeavor, which is electronic devices with connectors, their housing, and means for connecting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, USB, and Hoffman before him or her, to modify the teachings of Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and USB to include the teachings of Hoffman so that a height of the snapping segment is greater than or equal to a depth of the interface of the electronic device and is less than a sum of the depth of the interface of the electronic device and a thickness of a protective case that covers the electronic device.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for properly connecting to USB ports regardless of different types of devices and varying thickness of protective cases (as stated by Hoffman at [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hoffman with Sandisk, Beck, Phone-In, and USB to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17, and 19 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN G SNYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm (flexible).
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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN G SNYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights