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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 March 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 5 March 2025 and supplemental amendment filed 26 March 2025 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-24 are currently pending in the application. Claims 2, 14, and 25 have been cancelled by applicant.
The supplemental amendment dated 26 March 2025 has been filed to clarify amendments made to claim 1. In the version of the claims filed 5 March 2025, two phrases had been removed from the claim without annotation (see attached Examiner Interview Summary and lines 4-5 of claim 1), and it was not clear if the removal of these phrases was intentional. Applicant has clarified that the removal of these phrases was intentional (see p. 6 of applicant’s arguments filed 26 March 2025), and the version of the claims accompanying the supplemental amendment has the proper annotation to indicate this. The version of the claims filed 26 March 2025 has been examined, and the objections and rejections set forth in this Office action are directed to this version of the claims only.
The examiner notes that, although some errors have been corrected, the amended claims filed 26 March 2025 have not been annotated properly. For clarity, the annotations in this version of the claims should indicate the differences with respect to the version of the claims field 26 August 2024. In claim 1, the limitations “each said each said at least one engagement element comprising a leading surface and a trailing surface; wherein” (lines 6-9) and “wherein an angle between each said trailing surface and the corresponding underline) or removed (as of the current amendment. However, with the except of an additional “wherein,” these limitations were already present in the version of the claims filed 26 August 2024 and therefore are not new and should not be annotated as such. The limitations quoted above should instead read --each said resiliently deformable latch member comprising at least one engagement element; each said engagement element comprising a leading surface and a trailing surface; wherein-- (lines 6-9) and --wherein an angle between each said trailing surface and the corresponding resiliently deformable latch member is obtuse-- (lines 12-13). Applicant is reminded of the appropriate manner of making amendment set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.121. See also MPEP §§ 714(II)(C)(A) and 714(II)(C)(B).
In view of the amendment filed 26 March 2025, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office action mailed 5 September 2024 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, filed 5 March 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Limbert et al. US 2014/0056562 A1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include additional limitations, and the examiner agrees that Limbert alone does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations of amended claim 1. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Limbert in view of Lu et al. US 2008/0175542 A1.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, filed 5 March 2025, with respect to the patentability of amended claim 1 over Limbert in view of Lu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see middle of p. 8) that Lu does not cure the deficiencies of Limbert regarding amended claim 1 because Lu does not disclose or suggest a latch in which the above-discussed two modes for withdrawing the fibre optic connector – both (i) by a user depressing the deformable latch member and (ii) through application of a force parallel to the connector axis – are provided. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Limbert teaches that the fibre optic connector may be withdrawn by a user depressing the latch mechanism ([0040]), and Lu teaches that the connector may be withdrawn by both of these mechanisms (Lu [0041], [0044]). It would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lu to Limbert to increase the number of ways by which a user may remove the fibre optic connector from the adaptor (see rejection re. claim 1 below for details). All pending claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Limbert in view of Lu.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11, “adapter” should read --adaptor-- to be consistent with the spelling used elsewhere in the claim (see lines 2 and 14). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13, and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limbert et al. US 2014/0056562 A1 (hereinafter “Limbert”) in view of Lu et al. US 2008/0175542 A1 (hereinafter “Lu”).
Regarding claim 1, Limbert teaches a fibre optic connector (“connector” 110; [0039]; FIG. 3) for insertion into a fibre optic adaptor (11; FIGs. 1-3 – the examiner notes that Limbert uses reference character “11” to refer both to the adaptor of FIGs. 1-3 and to the individual connection units shown in FIG. 5; in this rejection, “11” refers exclusively to the adaptor, and the individual connection units are referred to with reference character “211,” which is used in the alternative embodiment shown in FIG. 9a, to avoid confusion), said fibre optic connector comprising:
a body portion (“body” 112, including “single units,” also called “simplex connectors,” 211; [0038]; [0049]; FIGs. 3-4b, 9a – although single units 211 are only labeled on FIG. 9a, a similar structure is clearly present in FIGs. 4a-4b and so this structure will also be referred to as 211 for convenience); and
a latch mechanism (114; [0038]) provided on the body ([0038]: “mounted on an upper surface of the body 112”; FIG. 4b);
said latch mechanism comprising at least one resiliently deformable latch member (“pair of latch members, arms” 116; [0038]; [0040] discloses that “the latch arms 116 are capable of flexing” which the examiner takes to mean that they are “resiliently deformable”);
each said resiliently deformable latch member comprising at least one engagement element (“retention lugs” 118; [0040]; FIGs. 3, 4c – each latch member 116 comprises one engagement element 118);
each said at least one engagement element comprising a leading surface and a trailing surface (see annotated FIG. 4c below); wherein the latch mechanism is adapted for actuation by a user depressing the deformable latch member to allow the fibre optic connector to be withdrawn from the fibre optic adaptor ([0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Limbert does not teach wherein an angle between each said trailing surface and the corresponding resiliently deformable latch member is obtuse, thereby allowing the fibre optic connector to be withdrawn from the fibre optic adaptor also by application of a force in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the connector without user actuation of the latch mechanism. The connector of Limbert is removable only via actuation by a user depressing the latch members perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e., with a “lateral force”; [0012], [0040]). One of the goals of Limbert is to produce a fibre optic connector which is easy to install and remove even in high-density optical networks where many connectors may be stacked on top of each other ([0006]).
Lu teaches a fibre optic connector (“first connector” 32; [0039]; FIGs. 14-15) for insertion to a fibre optic adaptor (“adapter” 34), said fibre optic connector comprising a latch mechanism (“latch” 50), said latch mechanism comprising a resiliently deformable latch member (“cantilever arm” 90), said resiliently deformable latch member comprising an engagement element (“retention tab” 51), said engagement element comprising a leading surface (“inclined region” 92) and a trailing surface (“declined region” 94), wherein an angle (180° − A3) between said trailing surface and said resiliently deformable latch member is obtuse ([0042]; see annotated FIG. 15 below), thereby allowing the fibre optic connector to be withdrawn from the fibre optic adaptor by application of a force in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the connector without user actuation of the latch mechanism ([0041]). Lu also teaches that the slope of the angle may be adjusted to require more or less force in order to remove the connector from the adaptor ([0041]). The connector of Lu may also be removed by user actuation of the latch mechanism ([0044]).
PNG
media_image2.png
613
1011
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Lu, to form an obtuse angle between each said trailing surface and the corresponding resiliently deformable latch member in the fibre optic connector of Limbert, thereby allowing the fibre optic connector to be withdrawn from the fibre optic adaptor also by application of a force in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the connector without user actuation of the latch mechanism, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow more flexibility and customizability in the design of the connector. Both Limbert and Lu are directed to fibre optic connectors intended to be used in high-density optical networks (Limbert [0006]; Lu [0005]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the longitudinal movement which may be used to disengage the connector of Lu would be suitable to incorporate into the connector of Limbert for the purpose of increasing the number of ways the connector may be disengaged from the adaptor, which would be useful in a high-density optical network.
Regarding claim 2, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that each said resiliently deformable latch member (116) is configured to resiliently deform in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of said fiber optic connector (110) (see annotated FIG. 4b below).
PNG
media_image3.png
386
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said resiliently deformable latch members (116) are mirror images of one another (see, e.g., FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said resiliently deformable latch members (116) are mounted substantially opposite one another (see, e.g., FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said resiliently deformable latch members (116) are configured to deform towards each other in use ([0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said resiliently deformable latch members (116) are resiliently biased away from one another ([0040] discloses that a user may deform the resilient deformable latch members towards each other, which implies that in a resting state they are resiliently biased away from one another).
Regarding claim 8, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said resiliently deformable latch members (116) are resiliently biased in a direction away from said body portion (112) ([0046] discloses that a user may deform the latch mechanism 114 towards the body portion 112 to disconnect it, which implies that in a resting state the latch mechanism 114 and the latch members 116 thereon, are resiliently biased away from the body portion 112).
Regarding claim 9, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that, in use, a removal force is required to overcome a resilient bias of said resiliently deformable latch members (116) to remove said fibre optic connector (110) from said fibre optic adaptor (11) ([0040]: “a user can apply pressure laterally across the body for disengagement” – “pressure” applied by a user is understood to be synonymous with a “removal force” which “overcomes a resilient bias”).
Limbert/Lu does not explicitly teach that the removal force is around 20N. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the exact amount of removal force required is a result effective variable which would affect the strength of the connection between the fibre optic connector and the adaptor. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that, in order to be able to be manually disconnected, the removal force required to disconnect the fibre optic connector and the adaptor would need to be a force able to be exerted by a human hand.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to require a removal force of 20N to overcome a resilient bias of said resiliently deformable latch members to remove said fibre optic connector from said fibre optic adaptor for the purpose of achieving a removal force which both allows for reliable connection of the connector and the adaptor and still is able to be exerted by a human hand, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 9. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (e.g., the removal force required to disconnect a fibre optic connector and adaptor) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said trailing surface (Limbert see annotated FIG. 4c above; Lu 94) comprises a curve (see Limbert FIG. 4c and Lu FIG. 15 – under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “curve,” both of these surfaces are considered to meet the claim language).
Regarding claim 11, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said leading surface (Limbert see annotated FIG. 4c above; Lu 92) comprises a curve (see Limbert FIG. 4c and Lu FIG. 15 – under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “curve,” both of these surfaces are considered to meet the claim language).
Regarding claim 12, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said leading surface (Limbert see annotated FIG. 4c above; Lu 92) comprises a convex curve (see Limbert FIG. 4c and Lu FIG. 15).
Regarding claim 13, Limbert/Lu, as applied to claim 11 above, does not explicitly teach that said leading surface and said trailing surface (Limbert see annotated FIG. 4c above; Lu 92, 94) are substantially mirror images of one another. However, Lu teaches that the angles A2 and A3 which define the inclination and declination of the trailing and leading surfaces may be equal ([0042]). If angles A2 and A3 are equal, then the leading and trailing surfaces will be mirror images of each other. The exact slope of angles A2 and A3 will affect the force required to install and remove the connector, and if A2 and A3 are equal, then approximately the same amount of force will be required to remove the connector as is required to install it (Lu [0042]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the additional teachings of Lu to make the leading and trailing surfaces in the connector of Limbert/Lu mirror images of each other for the purpose of requiring the same about of force to install the connector and to remove the connector, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that each said resiliently deformable latch member (116) transitions smoothly into a corresponding one of said engagement elements (118) (see, e.g., FIG. 4c – the engagement elements 118 are formed as extensions of each of the latch members 116, and so each latch member transitions smoothly from the arm of the latch member to the engagement element at the end of the arm).
Regarding claim 16, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that each said resiliently deformable latch member (116) transitions smoothly into a corresponding one of said leading surfaces (see, e.g., annotated FIG. 4c above).
Regarding claim 17, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that each said resiliently deformable latch member (116) transitions smoothly into a corresponding one of said trailing surfaces (see, e.g., annotated FIG. 4c above).
Regarding claim 18, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said resiliently deformable latch members (116) are configured to resiliently deform towards said body portion (112) ([0046] discloses that a user may deform the latch mechanism 114, which includes the latch members 116, towards the body portion 112 to disconnect it).
Regarding claim 19, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that said resiliently deformable latch members (116) are configured to resiliently deform in a direction parallel to a surface of said body portion (112) ([0039]-[0040] disclose that pressure is applied to deform the latch mechanisms “laterally across the body,” i.e., parallel to a surface of the body portion 112; see annotated FIG. 4b above).
Regarding claim 20, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that each said resiliently deformable latch member (116) comprises a release portion (“protruding release points” 117; [0040]; FIG 3).
Regarding claim 21, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that each said release portion (117) is located at an end of a corresponding one of said resiliently deformable latch members (116) distal from said body portion (see annotated FIG. 4b below).
PNG
media_image4.png
386
673
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that each said resiliently deformable latch member (116) protrudes beyond an edge of said body portion (112) (see, e.g., FIG. 5 – latch members protrude beyond an edge of section 112 of the body portion).
Regarding claim 23, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches at least two cut out windows (see, e.g., single unit 211 in FIGs. 4b, 9a), said cut out windows provided on opposing faces of said body portion (although only one side is shown, it is implied the opposing face of the body portion is symmetric, especially in light of FIG. 1 which shows the opposing orientation).
Regarding claim 24, Limbert/Lu additionally teaches that the number of said at least one resiliently deformable latch members (116) and the number of said engagement elements (118) is equal (there are two of each – see, e.g., FIGs. 3, 4b).
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lo et al. US 2005/0124201 A1 (see FIG. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA R. OXFORD whose telephone number is (703)756-1438. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on (571)272-2397. 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.
/EMMA R. OXFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874