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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (“Remarks”), filed 12 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive (see Remarks at page 6.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/031213 to Lewallen et al. (“US1”), below.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US1.
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an electrical and/or optical contact (20), comprising:
at least one central body (38) extending along a longitudinal axis, said at least on central body having:
a front portion (64) designed to house and hold at least one optical ferrule (42) intended to be connected to one end of a cable; the front portion having at least one means for locking/unlocking the connection (threaded portion, see Fig 5, [0051]) between the contact and a cavity (interior of 24 as shown in Fig 5) into which it is intended to be inserted;
a rear portion (66) designed to house the end of the cable (see Fig 5); and
a sleeve (40) designed to house the cable and to move rearwards/forwards with respect to the central body, the sleeve having at least one means (78) for temporarily retaining the sleeve on the central body (at 80), the temporary-retention means being active in the event of a pulling force (F 1) below or equal to a predetermined threshold (F2) being exerted on the sleeve, in order to prevent the unlocking means, which disconnects the contact, from being activated (see [0063]).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes the pulling force (F3) to be exerted on the sleeve in order to activate the unlocking means is greater than the predetermined threshold (F2) (see [0063]).
Regarding Claim 3, US1 describes the temporary-retention means are arranged such that, when the latter is inactive, the sleeve moves rearwards along a non-zero travel in order to activate the unlocking means (see [0063]).
Regarding Claim 10, US1 describes the sleeve as based on polymer material (see [0076]).
Regarding Claim 11, US1 describes a gasket arranged at the periphery of the sleeve in order to seal the one or more cavities in which the one or more contacts are intended to be inserted (see [0055]).
Regarding Claim 12, US1 describes at least one cavity (interior of 24 as shown in Fig 5) into which the one or more electrical and/or optical contacts are intended to be inserted.
Regarding Claim 13, US1 describes an adaptor comprising a body (24) defining the one or more cavities (interior of 24 as shown in Fig 5) into which the one or more electrical and/or optical contacts are intended to be inserted.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claims 12 or 13 above.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, US1 describes a method of employing one or more electrical and/or optical contacts, said method comprising the steps of: producing (inherent to the description of the device of US1) an electrical and/or optical connection with the connector of Claim 12 (see above) or the adapter of Claim 13 (see above).
US1 does not describe the predetermined threshold being at least equal to 8 N.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the connection of Claims 12 or 13 such that the predetermined threshold is at least equal to 8N, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-7 describe one or more clip-fastening lugs on at least one of the side edges of the central body in order to clip-fasten the latter within the cavity.
Claim 8-9 describe, as locking/unlocking means, at least one lever mounted so as to be able to pivot on the central body
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874