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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 4 and 24 recite, “the coupler,” and, “the side walls of the opening groove,” claim should be amended to recite –a coupler-- and –side walls of the opening groove--.
Claim 19 line 8 recites, “protective covering,” claim should be amended to recite –protective cover covering--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Line 2 recites, “IEC Standard IEC 61754-20.” IEC 61754-20 appears to be an industry standard, which consequently is subject to change over a period of time. Therefore, the recitation of IEC 61754-20 in the claim makes the claim vague and indefinite.
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) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caveney et al. [US 7,354,291] in view of Tobey et al. [US 2021/0104843].
Regarding claim 19, Caveney discloses a connector assembly comprising: a) a connector (fig. 1a) including: i) a pair of electrical contacts (fig. 2a; two 155); ii) an elastic locking piece (fig. 2a; 156) configured to engage with a surface (see Col 4 Ln 63-64, top internal surface) of a second connector (fig. 8; 168); and iii) an elastic unlocking piece (fig. 1a; 158) configured to engage with the elastic locking piece (156); b) a protective cover (fig. 1a; 110) having a hollow box shape (fig. 1a; 114) and having a through-hole (fig. 1a; 126), the protective (110) covering the elastic unlocking piece (158); and c) an unlocking rod (fig. 12; 178) having an elongated shape (180 is elongated) and being able to pass through the through-hole (126) of the protective cover (110) to deflect the elastic unlocking piece (158) to unlock the elastic locking piece (156) from the surface (top internal surface) of the second connector (168).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Caveney does not disclose a single pair Ethernet connector [claim 19], wherein the single pair Ethernet connector is a simplex LC connector compliant with IEC Standard IEC 61754-20 [claim 20].
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Tobey teaches a single pair LC connector (fig. 2a; 100, 18 is a single twisted conductor pair cable); the single pair Ethernet connector (LC connectors are used within ethernet networks) is a simplex LC connector (see Par [0048] Ln 3-5; also fig. 2a is an example of a simplex connector 100) compliant with IEC Standard IEC 61754-20 (see Par [0049] Ln 11-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a single pair Ethernet connector and the single pair Ethernet connector being a simplex LC connector compliant with IEC Standard IEC 61754-20 as suggested by Tobey for the benefit of providing optimized locking structures to an ethernet connector in order to significantly decrease unwanted disconnection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, provide or suggest the elastic unlocking piece extends forward in an angle from the top surface of the male connector and a free end of the elastic unlocking piece is located directly above a free end of the elastic locking piece; wherein the protective cover has an opening in the front end and includes a top wall, a bottom wall, and two side walls and a back wall connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, and wherein an opening groove opened toward the front opening and a pair of hooks located at the entrance of the opening groove are set on the bottom wall of the protective cover, the pair of hooks extend inward from the side walls of the opening groove combined with the remaining limitations of the base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/MARCUS E HARCUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2831