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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Applicant has amended the prior claims to an entirely new claim set that is broader than the previously examined claims. For example, the prior language pertaining to biasing forces and biasing member is no longer claimed.
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) 29-31, 34-42, 45-52 and 55-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0326449 to Shinoda et al.
Shinoda discloses in figures 1-2, 4 and 7, a MPO connector configured to be field assembled comprising:
A ferrule (33) configured to terminate fibers of a multi-fiber cable (31);
A sub-assembly portion (30) including an adapter portion (33) that is configured to be coupled with the ferrule portion (figure 4), a retaining portion (60) configured to be coupled with the cable and a biasing portion (40 and springs 50) configured to extend on opposite sides of the fibers and to couple the adapter to a retaining portion (figure 4);
Wherein the adapter portion includes an adapter front face (33a and 33b face) and the ferrule portion includes a ferrule front face portion (33a) and wherein the adapter front face portion and ferrule front face portion are configured to collectively define a front face portion of a MPO connector ferrule (see assembled component in figure 3);
Wherein the ferrule portion is configured to be pushed through a duct having an inside diameter smaller than a lateral dimension of the front face portion of the MPO connector (the ferrule portion is smaller and this functional language is absent additional structure as to how such a configuration performs the function of being pushed through a duct);
Wherein the biasing portion is configured to be coupled with the adapter portion and the retaining portion to couple the adapter portion with the retaining portion (See assembled component in figure 3);
Wherein the biasing portion is configured to apply separate biasing forces to the adapter on opposite sides of the fibers (dual spring portions 50 in figure 4);
Wherein the adapter portion, the retaining portion and the biasing portion are configured to be coupled together to assemble the sub-assembly portion such that the assembled sub-assembly portion can be coupled with the ferrule portion (see assembled component in figure 3);
Wherein the sub-assembly portion is structurally configured to receive fibers that are terminated with the ferrule portion between two portions of the biasing portion and between lateral portions of the adapter portion such that the sub-assembly portion is structurally configured to couple with the ferrule portion after the ferrule portion terminates the fibers so as to permit field assembly of the MPO connector (the order of assembly is not a positive limitation in an apparatus claim. The prior art components are all separate pieces that are assembled).
As to claim 30, springs (50) are parallel and on opposing sides (figure 4).
As to claim 31, the biasing portions are compression springs (50; figure 4).
As to claims 34 and 45, a separate spring portion (springs 70 and associated mounting; figure 2) biases the housing forward (paragraph 24). The claim language of the resulting urging force is not a structural limitation and therefore is not considered.
As to claims 35 and 46, multiple alignment portions are disclosed in figure 4 (34, 41a, 62, 63).
As to claims 36 and 47, alignment holes 33b are configured to mate w/ opposing MPO connectors.
Claims 37-42, 48-52 and 55-58 are claims that reword or rearrange the recited structure above into variants.
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) 32-33, 43-44 and 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda in view of US 2020/0049898 to Hosokawa et al.
Shinoda discloses the invention as claimed including separate pieces for the retaining member (figures 5-7), but fails to explicitly disclosed a hinged housing member (and respective claims 33, 44, and 54 for a “living” hinge). It is noted that making what was once two pieces into an integral single piece is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. To add a hinged portion to create this integra, housing is well known across multiple arts.
Hosokawa discloses such a two-piece housing converted into a singular piece with a hinge (figure 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to create a single component as taught by Hosokawa in the multiple piece arrangement of Shinoda to reduce the number of parts and increase simplicity.
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