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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on August 18, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group 1 includes a biasing member and also that the two inventions are similar and would not impose a serious burden. This is found persuasive and as such, claims 19 and 20 will be rejoined and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 7, 2023 has considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Five sheets for formal drawings were filed March 8, 2023 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following reasons(s):
Regarding claim 5, “at least one the” in line 1 should be replaced with “at least one of the”.
Further regarding claim 5, since the claim recites “at least one of the plurality of discrete gripping regions comprises a shoulder”, said shoulder should be formed by a change in dimensions of “at least one of the first and second frame members” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishioka et al. (US 2020/0341214 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Nishioka discloses an insertion and extraction tool (1 in Figs. 4-6) for a fiber optic connector, comprising: a first frame member (5); second frame member (6); and a pivot connection (7) securing the first and second frame members to one another for movement between an open position and a closed position, the first and second frame members defining tips (2, 4) at one side of the pivot connection and handles (8) at an opposite side of the pivot connection, wherein the first and second frame members at least at the tips have a cross sectional width equal to or smaller than the fiber optic connector (butting parts 3 abut rear wall 31d of the connector, and tips 2 and 4 have a narrower width than the butting parts, so naturally the tips would have a cross sectional width smaller than the connector), and wherein the first and second frame members are configured so that the tips define a plurality of discrete gripping regions (4b, 2d, 2f, 2g), wherein each of the plurality of discrete gripping regions is configured to pull to extract and push to install the fiber optic connector (paragraphs 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 2, Nishioka discloses each of the plurality of discrete gripping regions is configured to pull to extract and push to install the fiber optic connector in paragraphs 0055-0056.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Nishioka discloses the plurality of discrete gripping regions comprises three regions (4b, 2d, 2f, 2g).
Regarding claim 4, Nishioka discloses at least one the plurality of discrete gripping regions (4b) comprises a surface of increased friction.
Regarding claim 5, Nishioka discloses at least one of the plurality of discrete gripping regions comprises a shoulder formed by a change in dimensions of the first and second frame members at the tips in Fig. 6.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Nishioka discloses a biasing member (8d in Fig. 5) that normally biases the tips to a predetermined position in paragraph 0053.
Regarding claim 7, Nishioka discloses the biasing member is a torsion spring that normally biases the tips to the open position in paragraph 0053.
Regarding claim 14, Nishioka discloses a coating on the handles in Fig. 5.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-13, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (US 2020/0341214 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Nishioka further discloses extending parts rotating between “opened” and “closed” positions wherein a distance between the extending parts can be adjusted from a longer distance to a shorter distance in paragraph 0052. Nishioka further discloses preventing the extending parts from being excessively opened in paragraph 0054. Nishioka teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating stopping features. However, stopping features are well-known and commonly used in the art of insertion and extraction tools, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use stopping features defining a closed position wherein the tips do not contact one another and an open position for preventing damage to the tool.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 15, Nishioka teaches the claimed invention except for a latch. However, latches are well-known and commonly used in the art of insertion and extraction tools, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a latch configured to secure the first and second frame members in the closed position to increase the ease of use for a technician. Further, one having ordinary skill would find it obvious to configure the latch as the second stopping feature in order to reduce the number of components and simplify the manufacturing process of the tool.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 19 and 20, Nishioka teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the cross sectional width. However, Nishioka in paragraph 0079 states that the size and shape of the connector extracting jig can be changed as appropriate and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed cross sectional width depending on the connector to be extracted, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 17, 2025
Prosecution Insights