DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(sin the prior office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2018/0356600 to Takano et al.
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 2018/0356600 to Takano et al.
Takano discloses in figures 10a-10b, a multi-fiber optical connector comprising:
A ferrule (200) comprising a plurality of bores (figure 4) for receiving one or more optical fibers;
A nosepiece (730) comprising a front and rear portion along with a passageway extending front to rear where the rear has at least one cantilevered arm (731a) and a ferrule backstop (inner front end surface) “for limiting travel of the ferrule in a Z-direction” (it is noted that the “use” of the back stop is not a positive limitation in this instance since no additional structure is recited as to what defines the back stop. Certainly, the inner surfaces of Takano’s nosepiece would prevent movement of the ferrule when assembled).
As to claim 2, there is a second cantilevered arm (731b).
As to claim 3, paragraph 36 discloses indentations for locking the nosepiece. This claim provides no detail as to the makeup of the locking feature other than one is present.
Claim 4 is similar to the above but discloses a female key on an outer surface of a connector housing. As noted for claim 3 above, numerous indentation features would serve this feature and are “female”.
As to claim 5, the front of the connector has cutout portions to receive the cantilevered arms (figures 10b and 11b).
As to claim 6, this claim differs in that a “pocket” is recited. While the claim recites a “male key”, the claim does not define this male key, nor its location. The prior art has a male key portion in the connector portion in figure 8a-8b. Applicant defines both the pocket as being a cutout portion in figure 41 and a slot in figure 40. The claim does not require this pocket to be a part of the cantilevered arms. Therefore. the prior art’s arms having sides that are open still meet this language.
Claims 7-8 are combinations of the above.
Claims 45-46 and 48 relate to method claims for using the above.
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 Takano in view of US 10,359,577 to Dannoux et al.
Takano 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. Takano discloses multiple attachment features in paragraph 36 from interlocking through-holes to indentations.
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 Takano to properly secure the connector to a nosepiece or adapter.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights