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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 10/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement filed 8/02/2023 has been considered.
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 16 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.
Claim 16 contains the trademark/trade name “Teflon.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe fluoropolymer and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0041640 A1 to Singer et al (hereinafter “Singer”).
Regarding claim 1, Singer discloses a fiber optical connector system comprising: a first connector (e.g. 10 in Fig. 2) and a second connector (e.g. 20 in Fig. 2) adapted to mate with one another, the first and second connectors each including: a connector body (e.g. 10 in Fig. 2) having a front end and a rear end; a fiber ferrule (11 or 12 in Fig. 2; see paragraph [0107]) having a face accessible at the front end of the connector body; and a spring (e.g. 17 in Fig. 2) for biasing the fiber ferrule in a forward direction relative to the connector body; the spring of the first connector is wound in a first direction and the spring of the second connector is wound in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction (see the annotated Fig. 2 below).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
551
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Singer discloses the use of a fiber ferrule, it does not explicitly disclose that the fiber ferrule is a multi-fiber ferrule, in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of a multi-fiber ferrule is well known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantages of using a multi-fiber ferrule, since it increases the signal coupling capabilities of the fiber connector and allows high bandwidth, multi-channel optical communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Singer to have a multi-fiber ferrule in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 2, Singer discloses that the ferrule used in the connector shown in Fig. 1-2 contain optical fibers therein (paragraph [0107]). While Singer does not explicitly state that the optical fiber ends are “exposed”, such feature is necessarily disclosed by Singler because connectors 10 and 20 of Fig. 2 are meant to physically contact and transmit optical signals (paragraph [0115]).
Regarding claim 3, Singer discloses wherein the optical fibers of the first and second connectors are aligned with one another when the first and the second connectors are mated (paragraph [0115]).
Regarding claim 4, Singer discloses wherein the first connector includes an alignment pin and is a male connector (Figs. 1-2), and the second connector includes alignment pin openings and is a female connector (fully disclosed in paragraph [0114]), wherein when the first connector and the second connectors are mated with one another, the alignment pins of the male connector fit within the pin openings of the female connector (paragraph [0110], [0114]).
Regarding claim 5, Singer renders the claim limitations of claim 1 obvious as already discussed above. However, Singer does not explicitly disclose each of the connectors including at least 12 optical fibers in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of multi-fiber connectors where each of the connectors comprise at least 12 optical fibers is well known and common in the art. Such optical fiber accommodation allows for high-density optical coupling capable of high-bandwidth, robust optical communications coupling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Singer to have each of the connectors comprising at least 12 optical fibers in the manner claimed in the present application.
Claim(s) 15-16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of US Patent No. 4,793,683 to Cannon, Jr. et al. (hereinafter “Cannon”).
Regarding claim 15, Singer discloses a fiber optical connector system as discussed above, and renders obvious a multi-fiber optical connector system recited in claim 1 as already discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the use of a washer disposed between the spring and the ferule in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of a washer is known in the optical fiber connector art. For example, Cannon discloses an optical fiber connector, wherein a washer (47 in Fig. 2) is disposed between the spring (44) and the fiber ferrule (24). Such a washer would necessarily “reduce” the rotation caused by the spring since it is an interposed mass that dissipates any forces applied by the spring (including any rotational force) to the ferrule. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of using a washer in a fiber optic connector since it would ensure secure positioning of the spring element against the fiber ferrule structure and prevent any uneven elastic pressure from being exerted by the spring element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Singer to have a washer disposed between the spring and the fiber ferrule in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 16, Cannon does not explicitly disclose that the washer is made of Teflon or fluoropolymer in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of fluoropolymer washer is well known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of using a fluoropolymer washer since they are mechanically resilient to repeated stress/strain applied by the abutting spring element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Singer and Cannon to have a washer made of fluoropolymer in the manner claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/SUNG H PAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874