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.
Claim 1-54 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-63 of copending Application No. 18/113,376 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both these inventions relate to a male plug connector with a ferrule and corresponding nosepiece with two cantilevered arms and a connector keyway and associated adapters with what appear to be common variations of structural locking or addition of connector elements.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements received have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. See the attached forms PTO-1449s.
The numerous references and materials listed on the submitted 158 sheets of the IDS's make it difficult to determine whether or not any of the references, or parts of the references, are material to applicants' claimed invention. It is noted that applicants, in their several IDS submissions, do not indicate any particular reference or parts of references which they deem "material" to the patentability of the pending claims under 37 CFR 1.56(b).
Applicants are reminded of the standard set forth in the leading inequitable conduct case of J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 223 USPQ 1089 (Nov. 9, 1984), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 73 (1985): Where none of the prior art cited during prosecution teaches a key element of the claim(s) and where a reference known to the applicants does, the applicants should know that reference is material. Thus, if applicants are aware of any cited reference from among the information disclosure(s) that are "material," applicants should make that reference known to the examiner.
It is also noted that a "misrepresentation is material if it makes it impossible for the Patent Office fairly to assess [the patent] application against the prevailing statutory criteria." In re Multidistrict-Litig. Involving Forst Patent, 540 F.2d 601, 604, 191 USPQ 241, 243 (3d Cir. 1976); see also Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 456 F.2d 592, 600, 172 USPQ 323, 329 (3d Cir.), ce.rt. denied, 40'7 U.S. 934, 174 USPQ 129 (1972). And, the submission of voluminous documents in the instant information disclosure statements (here, in excess of 1450 documents) make it difficult, and likely impossible, for the Patent Office to fairly assess applicants' application against the prevailing statutory criteria.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-8, 45-46 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,541,711 to Raven et al.
Raven discloses in figure 5, a multi-fiber optical connector comprising:
A ferrule (46) comprising a plurality of bores for receiving one or more optical fibers (“multi-fiber cable”; paragraph 51);
A nosepiece (5) comprising a front and rear portion with a passageway (65) extending from a front to rear end, and the rear portion comprises at least one cantilevered arm (53) and a ferrule back stop (the sidewalls are arranged to support the ferrule which is stopped within. Unlabeled interior of figure 7);
A connector (19 or 23) with a female key disposed on an outer surface (adapter tab portions 27 in figure 3 would need a corresponding, unlabeled female key portion on the connector to latch).
As to claim 2, there are two arms (figure 5).
As to claim 3, the connector has integrated keys and locking portions (corresponding slot for tabs 31 and key 37).
Claim 4 is similar to the above but discloses features together in independent form and that the nosepiece comprises a pocket for a male key (the tabs 31 of the prior art would need a pocket to secure the projections).
As to claim 5, the openings receive the cantilevered arm extensions (figure 2).
Claims 6-8 is a combination of the above disclosed features.
Claims 45-46 and 48 relate to method claims for using the above.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 9-44, 47, 49-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raven in view of US 10,359,577 to Dannoux et al.
Raven discloses the invention as claimed except for certain securing features and combination of these features with sizes or locations of locking members with a cylindrically-shaped connector. These all appear to be common variations of securing features to either the connector or nosepiece portions.
Dannoux discloses such features of ramps, locking members and respective tabs and slots arranged on a cylindrical connector (figures 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange locking portions, provide multiple ferrules or size connectors as taught by Dannoux in Raven to properly secure the connector to a nosepiece or adapter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,933,582 (cantilever arm portions for multi-fiber ferrule; figure 1).
US 9,684,138 (figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874