DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 19/346,905. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a similar subject matter.
Instant application 19/240,882
Co-pending application 19/346,905
Claim 1. An information device including a first part and a second part connected to each other via a hinge portion, the information device comprising: a first terminal disposed at the first part; a second terminal disposed at the second part; and an optical fiber configured to optically connect the first terminal and the second terminal to each other,
wherein the optical fiber extends from the first terminal to the second terminal through the hinge portion.
Claim 1: An opto-electric connection component comprising: a first terminal member; a second terminal member; at least one optical fiber including a first end and a second end located opposite to the first end, the first end and the second end being connected to the first terminal member and the second terminal member, respectively; and at least one metal wire including a first end and a second end located opposite to the first end, the first end and the second end being connected to the first terminal member and the second terminal member, respectively.
Claim 5; The opto-electric connection component according to claim 1, wherein the optical fiber and the metal wire are partially twisted together in a longitudinal direction, and a hinge portion configured to allow the optical fiber and the metal wire to pass therethrough is positioned at a location where the optical fiber and the metal wire are partially twisted together.
Claim 12: An information device comprising: the opto-electric connection component according to claim 1; a first device component; and a second device component, wherein the first device component is connected to the first terminal member, and wherein the second device component is connected to the second terminal member.
Claim 11: A wiring structure configured to be provided in an information device including a first part and a second part connected to each other via a hinge portion, the wiring structure comprising: a first terminal disposed at the first part; a second terminal disposed at the second part; and an optical fiber configured to optically connect the first terminal and the second terminal to each other,
wherein the optical fiber is disposed to extend from the first terminal to the second terminal through the hinge portion.
Claim 1: An opto-electric connection component comprising: a first terminal member; a second terminal member; at least one optical fiber including a first end and a second end located opposite to the first end, the first end and the second end being connected to the first terminal member and the second terminal member, respectively; and at least one metal wire including a first end and a second end located opposite to the first end, the first end and the second end being connected to the first terminal member and the second terminal member, respectively.
Claim 5: The opto-electric connection component according to claim 1, wherein the optical fiber and the metal wire are partially twisted together in a longitudinal direction, and a hinge portion configured to allow the optical fiber and the metal wire to pass therethrough is positioned at a location where the optical fiber and the metal wire are partially twisted together.
Claim 12: An information device comprising: the opto-electric connection component according to claim 1; a first device component; and a second device component, wherein the first device component is connected to the first terminal member, and wherein the second device component is connected to the second terminal member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(21) as being anticipated by Marcinkiewicz (US 20060133738; “Marci” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Marci discloses an information device including a first part (120) and a second part (130) connected to each other via a hinge portion (hinge 112 including hinge portions 124, 134), the information device comprising: a first terminal (152, 140) disposed at the first part (120); a second terminal (154, 142) disposed at the second part (110); and an optical fiber (150) configured to optically connect the first terminal and the second terminal to each other (par. [0037]- [0038]), wherein the optical fiber extends from the first terminal to the second terminal through the hinge portion (par. [0037]; figs 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, Marci discloses wherein a direction in which the optical fiber (150) extends from the first terminal and a direction in which the optical fiber extends from the second terminal each coincide with a direction in which a rotation axis of the hinge portion extends (“The fiber optic cable is flexible and may be coiled in the hinge 112 (e.g., about the pivot extension 124A”, par. [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Marci discloses wherein the hinge portion (112 or 134 and 124) has a hole (figs 3-5) that the optical fiber enters (figs 3- 5), and wherein a direction in which a part of the optical fiber (150) extending from the first terminal (152, 140) enters the hole differs from a direction in which a part of the optical fiber extending from the second terminal enters the hole (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Marci discloses wherein the optical fiber (150) includes a twisted portion twisted in a state in which the first part is opened with respect to the second part (“The fiber optic cable is flexible and may be coiled in the hinge 112 (e.g., about the pivot extension 124A) as shown”, par. [0037]; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Marci discloses wiring structure (figs 3-5) configured to be provided in an information device (100) including a first part (120) and a second part (130) connected to each other via a hinge portion (hinge 112 including hinge portions 124, 134), the wiring structure comprising: a first terminal (152, 140) disposed at the first part (fig. 3); a second terminal (154, 142) disposed at the second part (figs 3-4); and an optical fiber (150) configured to optically connect the first terminal and the second terminal to each other (par. [0037]- [0038]), wherein the optical fiber is disposed to extend from the first terminal to the second terminal through the hinge portion (par. [0037]; figs. 3-5).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marci in view of Ueno (US 20080152286: “Ueno” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Marci discloses wherein each of the first terminal (152, 140) and the second terminal (154, 142) includes a substrate (140, 142), and a photoelectric conversion element (152 and 154) electrically optically connected to the optical fiber (par. [0039]).
Marci does not explicitly disclose the substrate includes a connector and a photoelectric conversion element electrically connected to the connector.
Ueno teaches an electronic device comprising an optoelectric composite wiring module (1) connected to circuit boards (103A and 103B) via connectors (104A and 104B); wherein a photoelectric conversion element (41a, 41b) electrically connected to the connector (104A, 104B) (light receiving elements 41a and 41b electrically connected to the connectors 104A and 104B via 22A, 22B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Marci to includes a connector disposed on the circuit board or substrate and a photoelectric conversion element electrically connected to the connector as suggested by Ueno because such modification helps to perform photoelectric conversion and receives or outputs an optical signal transmit optical signals between the circuit boards or other components by performing photoelectric conversion.
Regarding claim 3, Marci in view of Ueno discloses wherein the electrical connector of the first terminal is electrically connected to a camera (144, Marci) disposed at the first part (120, Marci) (camera 144 is connected to the circuit board 140 via 160, Marci).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marci.
Regarding claim 5, Marci discloses wherein the second terminal (circuit board 142 or the connecter 154).
Marci does not explicitly disclose the second terminal has a rectangular shape with long sides and short sides, and wherein the second terminal is disposed in an orientation in which a direction in which the long sides extend coincides with a direction in which a rotation axis of the hinge portion extends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the circuit board or the signal converter to be rectangular and is disposed in an orientation in which a direction in which the long sides extend coincides with a direction in which a rotation axis of the hinge portion extends, since changing the shape of the second terminal and rearranging the second terminal appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Marci discloses wherein the hinge portion (112 or 134 and 124) has a hole (figs 3-5) that the optical fiber enters (figs 3- 5).
Marci does not explicitly wherein a direction in which a part of the optical fiber extending from the first terminal enters the hole coincides with a direction in which a part of the optical fiber extending from the second terminal enters the hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange in which a part of the optical fiber extending from the first terminal enters the hole and a direction in which a part of the optical fiber extending from the second terminal enters the hole to coincide, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marci in view of Asakura et al. (US 20110102986; “Asakura” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Marci discloses wherein the second terminal (circuit board 142 or the connecter 154).
Marci does not explicitly disclose the second terminal has a rectangular shape with long sides and short sides, and wherein the second terminal is disposed in an orientation in which a direction in which the long sides extend intersects a direction in which a rotation axis of the hinge portion extends.
Asakura teaches an electronic device comprising a cable (21) connected to a second terminal (connector 23) having a rectangular shape with long sides and short sides (fig. 3A), and wherein the second terminal is disposed in an orientation in which a direction in which the long sides extend intersects a direction in which a rotation axis of a hinge portion (10) extends (figs. 2A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the second terminal of Marci to have a rectangular shape with long sides and short sides, and wherein the second terminal is disposed in an orientation in which a direction in which the long sides extend intersects a direction in which a rotation axis of the hinge portion extends as suggested by Asakura, since changing the shape of the second terminal and rearranging the second terminal appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice as evident from Asakura, and while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Marci,
Regarding claim 9, Marci discloses wherein the optical fiber includes an excess portion (“The fiber optic cable is flexible and may be coiled in the hinge 112 (e.g., about the pivot extension 124A) as shown”, par. [0037]), the excess portion being a part in which the optical fiber is curved and being configured to maintain (fig. 3), when the first part is rotated with respect to the second part, a state in which the optical fiber is slack (fig. 3).
If Marci is considered fail to teach the optical fiber includes an excess portion, the excess portion being a part in which the optical fiber is curved and being configured to maintain, when the first part is rotated with respect to the second part, a state in which the optical fiber is slack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the second terminal of Marci, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/length of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kassamakov et al. (US 20070286556) teaches an information device including a first part (12) and a second part (13) to each other via a hinge portion (14), the information device comprising: a first terminal (41) disposed at the first part; a second terminal (42) disposed at the second part; and an optical fiber (31) configured to optically connect the first terminal and the second terminal to each other (fig. 4), wherein the optical fiber extends from the first terminal to the second terminal through the hinge portion (fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1236. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-6:30 pm, Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights