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 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.
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Qi 2020/0218014US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Isenhour 2021/0132300US.
In terms of Claims 15 and 16, Qi teaches a combination comprising: a clasp (Figure 2: 371) for attachment to a connector core (Figure 2: 371 and 3/39); a first lanyard (Figure 2: 37) having a first end and an opposite, second end, wherein said first end of said first lanyard is attached to said clasp (Figure 2: top end of 37 is attached 371); and a first fitting (372 /32) attached to said second end of said first lanyard (Figure 2: 372), wherein said first fitting (372 /32) is structurally dimensioned to removably hold a first envelope attachment (Figure 2: 372 /32 holds 39 which is attach to it [0103]), where the first envelope attachment (39) is structurally compatible to attach to said connector core (Figure 3: 39 and 3); wherein said first fitting (372/32) is not structurally compatible to attach to said connector core; wherein said first fitting (Figure 2: 372 /32) includes an outer sleeve (Figure 15: 325).
Qi does not teach wherein envelopes modifies one or more structural features of said connector, so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port.
Isenhour does teach wherein envelope (Figure 1a: 68) modifies one or more structural features of said connector (Figure 1a: 5), so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port (Figure 1b: wherein 68 contains alignment key features to match the port 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the envelopes to structurally change the connector port engagement or alignment features to be compatible with different types of ports. This ensures the connector compatibility with many different types of ports and devices during assembly.
In regards to Claim 17, Qi / Isenhour teaches the device of claim 16. Qi /Isenhour do not teach wherein inner diameter of the outer sleeve is less than 10 mm.
It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the diameter of the outer sleeve to be less than 10 mm to make the device smaller and make it compatible with smaller type of connector bodies, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As for claim 19, Qi teach the combination according to claim 16, wherein Qi teaches an inner surface of said outer sleeve (325 has inner surface 3242) include a plurality of projections and pathways (3241, 3243), which can interact with pathways and projections formed on an outer surface of a circular portion of the first envelope attachment (within 39 to couple with 39 [0148-0149]), and wherein insertion and partial rotation of the first envelope attachment (39) into the outer sleeve (321 area) results in a bayonet-type retention, so that said first fitting holds the first envelope attachment (325 of 32 attaches to 39 via rotation or twisting [0148-0149]).
Claims 1-14, 18 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Qi 2020/0218014US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Isenhour 2021/0132300US and further in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Cote 2021/0318499US.
In terms of Claim 1, Qi teaches a combination comprising: a clasp (Figure 2: 371) for attachment to a connector core (Figure 2: 371 attaches to connector 3/39);a first lanyard (Figure 2: 37) having a first end and an opposite, second end, wherein said first end of said first lanyard is attached to said clasp (Figure 6: 37 is attached 371); a second lanyard (Figure 2: 12) having a first end and an opposite, second end, a first fitting (372) attached to said second end of said first lanyard (Figure 2: 372 attached to 32); and a second fitting (Figure 2: 121 or 122) attached to said second end of said second lanyard (Figure 2: 122 /121 and 12), wherein said second fitting and said first fitting (122/121 or 372) are structurally dimensioned to removably hold envelope attachments (122/121 holds 16 and 14 while 372 holds 32) for the connector core (Figure 2: 3 and 39).
Qi does not teach wherein 1st and 2nd envelopes attachments modifies one or more structural features of said connector, so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port.
Isenhour does teach wherein a first envelope (Figure 1a: 68) modifies one or more structural features of said connector (Figure 1a: 5), so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port (Figure 1b: wherein 68 contains alignment key features to match the port 30). Further 2nd envelope (Figure 1a: 30) modifies structural features of the connector core (Figure 1a: 5) to allow the connector core (5) to be coupled to different type port fittings, since the second envelope structure (30) is different from 1st envelope (68) structure (Figure 1a: 1st envelope 68 has a narrow coupling point; 2nd envelope 30 has a wider coupling portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 1st and 2nd envelopes to structurally change the connector port engagement or alignment features to be compatible with different types of ports in other devices. This ensures the connector compatibility with many different types of ports and devices during assembly.
Qi / Isenhour do not teach wherein said first end of said second lanyard is attached said clasp (the same clasp to form a y-branch similar to applicant’s disclosure of Figure 3).
Cote does teach a y-branch lanyard wherein said first end of said second lanyard is attached said clasp (See Figure 12: wherein 2nd lanyard is coupled to same clasp 601 as the first lanyard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 2nd lanyard setup to be coupled to the same clasp as shown below in order to reduce the amount tethers used to connector. This allows the device to reduce cost and reduce the need of individual clasp for each lanyard branch.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 1, wherein Qi teaches wherein said clasp (Figure 6: 371) is formed as an eyelet (Figure 6: 371 is circular and round like an eye shape).
As for claim 3, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 1, wherein Qi teaches wherein said clasp (Figure 6: 371) is formed as a resilient open-sided ring (371 has a hollowing opening on the side), which may snap over the connector core (Figure 2: 371 is shown connected to core area 3 by being snap onto the cylindrical portion).
As for claim 4, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 1, Qi does not teach wherein first fitting and the second fitting are identically formed.
Cote does teach fittings of lanyard being identically formed (See Figure 12: 601).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fitting to be identically formed to make the device compatible with similar coupling dimension structures, further having the same shape/size would allow the device to be mass manufactured in large quantities easier for mass production.
As for claim 5, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 1, Qi / Isenhour do not teach wherein the first and second lanyards are formed of a flexible plastic.
Cote does teach wherein the lanyard 600 having branches 603 are made of a flexible thermoplastic (Cote’s [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of lanyards to be of a flexible plastic in order to improve the flexibility of the lanyards thus preventing damage to the lanyard when it is being bent (Cote’s [0092]).
As for claim 6, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 1, Qi further teaches wherein each of said first fitting (372) and said second fitting ((121/122)) includes: an outer sleeve (Figure 2: 32 for 372 and 121 is couple to outer sleeve 11); an inner plug (Figure 2: 372 and inner plug portion 3211; Figure 2: 121 has inner plug portion 14); and a gap formed between said outer sleeve and said inner plug (Figure 1: contains a gap between 11 and 14 houses the fitting ring of 12; Figure 15: shows the fitting is between 325 and 3211 having a gap portion 3212), and wherein said outer sleeve or said inner plug or both are deformed when a circular portion of the envelope attachment is inserted into said gap (the inner plug 32 is deformed at 321 that couples with 39 [0149]; meanwhile the inner plug area 14 also has deformed area 1412 that couples with 39).
Qi / Isenhour do not teach wherein said outer sleeve and said inner plug are formed of a resilient, plastic material.
Cote does teach wherein plug / sleeve body (Figure 12: 610 is made of polystyrene [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cote plastic plug / outer sleeve structure to be made out plastic such as polystyrene because polystyrene is a low-cost material relative to metal and polystyrene can also be easily molded to the have different deformations during the manufacturing process.
As for claim 7, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 6, wherein Qi teaches wherein at least one of an inner surface of said outer sleeve and an outer surface of said inner plug includes a bulbous portion, which narrows said gap (Figure 15: 325 has step ring ledge portion above 3212 which narrows the gap 321 it is consider an inner surface since it is located inside of the diameter of 325, while plug portion has an outside surface 3211 which creates a ledge thus narrowing the gap between 325 and 3211 and defining the gap 3212).
As for claim 8, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 6, wherein Qi / Isenhour / Cote does not teach diameter of the inner sleeve to be less than 10 mm.
It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the diameter of the outer sleeve to be less than 10 mm to make the device smaller and make it compatible with smaller type of connector bodies, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As for claim 9, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 6, Qi further teaches wherein each of said first fitting and said second fitting further includes and finger tab projecting away from an outer surface of said outer sleeve (Figure 3: 11 contains circular indentation to form flat tabs ridges for gripping or the middle portion 1441 which contains a flat disc tab which may be using gripping during the removal of 121), to assist with removing said first and second fittings from the envelope attachments (to remove 14 from 39). 32 which is part of the first fitting contains arc shape tabs (Figure 15: 3251 on 325) that allows for finger gripping during the removal of fitting from 39 via twisting or rotation.
As for claim 10, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 1,
Qi and Isenhour does not teach a third envelope attachment for the connector core, which modifies one or more structural features of the connector core, so that the connector core may physically connect to or within a different connector or port.
The examiner considers having a 3rd envelope attachment similar to 1st attachment (Isenhour’s Figure 1a: 68) or 2nd envelope attachment (Isenhour Figure 1a: 30) to have the same structures as either 1st or 2nd fitting as claimed to be an obvious modification since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the structures of the envelope attachment and the fittings in order in order to have replacement components in place in case one of the other envelope attachments gets damage during installation.
Qi / Isenhour / Cote do not teach further comprising: a third lanyard having a first end and an opposite, second end, wherein said first end of said third lanyard is attached said clasp; and a third fitting attached to said second end of said third lanyard, wherein said third fitting is structurally dimensioned to removably hold an envelope attachment for the connector core. The examiner considers having a 3rd lanyard to have the same structures as either 1st or 2nd fitting as claimed to be an obvious modification since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the structures of lanyard and the fittings in order to scale the device to handle more connection element caps or to convert an existing connector to another type of connector via the fittings.
In terms of claims 11 and 14, Qi teaches a combination comprising: a connector core (Figure 2: 3) presenting one or more communication carrying mediums for transmitting and/or receiving communication signals (Figure 2: 31 and [0086]); a clasp (Figure 2: 371) attached to said connector core (Figure 2: 3 and 371); a first lanyard (Figure 2: 37) having a first end and an opposite (37), second end, wherein said first end of said first lanyard is attached to said clasp (Figure 6: 37 and 371); a first fitting (Figure 2: 372) attached to said second end of said first lanyard (Figure 2: 372 is at the bottom of 37); and a first envelope attachment (Figure 2: 32) removably attached to said first fitting (Figure 2: ring 372 can be remove from 32 as shown by gap 3212 in Figure 15), wherein said first envelope attachment has external features (Figure 15: 321) to physically attach said first envelope attachment (32) to said connector core (via 39 and [0101]) when said first envelope attachment is removed from said first fitting (32 can be attached to 39 and the fitting ring 372 of lanyard 37 can be remove since it is not physically attached to 325. This means 372 can be remove from 32 at any given time) wherein said connector core (3/39) includes a ferrule holding one or more optical fibers ([0101]).
Qi does not teach wherein envelopes modifies one or more structural features of said connector, so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port.
Isenhour does teach wherein envelope (Figure 1a: 68) modifies one or more structural features of said connector (Figure 1a: 5), so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port (Figure 1b: wherein 68 contains alignment key features to match the port 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the envelopes to structurally change the connector port engagement or alignment features to be compatible with different types of ports. This ensures the connector compatibility with many different types of ports and devices during assembly.
As for claim 12, Qi teach the combination according to claim 1, wherein Qi further teaches comprising: a second lanyard (Figure 2: 12) having a first end and an opposite, second end (Figure 2: 12 top and bottom ends), a second fitting (121) attached to said second end of said second lanyard (12); and a second envelope attachment (Figure 2: 1) removable attached to said second fitting (Figure 2: 1 is attached to ring 121), wherein said second envelope attachment (14) has external features to physically attach said second envelope attachment (Figure 2: 1412 attached to 39/3) to said connector core (Figure 2: 3) when said second envelope attachment is removed from said second fitting (121 can be remove at any time from 1 by unscrewing element 11 and releasing the ring 121).
Qi does not teach wherein said first end of said second lanyard is attached said clasp (the same clasp to form a y-branch similar to applicant’s disclosure of Figure 3).
Cote does teach a y-branch lanyard wherein said first end of said second lanyard is attached said clasp (See Figure 12: wherein 2nd lanyard is coupled to same clasp 601 as the first lanyard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 2nd lanyard setup to be coupled to the same clasp as shown below in order to reduce the amount tethers used to connector. This allows the device to reduce cost and reduce the need of individual clasp for each lanyard branch.
Qi and Cote do not teach wherein second envelopes modifies one or more structural features of said connector, so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port.
Isenhour does teach wherein a first envelope (Figure 1a: 68) modifies one or more structural features of said connector (Figure 1a: 5), so that said connector core may physically connect to or with a different connector or a port (Figure 1b: wherein 68 contains alignment key features to match the port 30). Further 2nd envelope (Figure 1a: 30) modifies structural features of the connector core (Figure 1a: 5) to allow the connector core (5) to be coupled to different type port fittings, since the second envelope structure (30) is different from 1st envelope (68) structure (Figure 1a: 1st envelope 68 has a narrow coupling point; 2nd envelope 30 has a wider coupling portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 1st and 2nd envelopes to structurally change the connector port engagement or alignment features to be compatible with different types of ports in other devices. This ensures the connector compatibility with many different types of ports and devices during assembly.
As for claim 13, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the combination according to claim 12, wherein Qi teaches said first envelope attachment (32) converts said connector core (3) into a first class of connector (39/3 is coupled 32), wherein said second envelope attachment (14) converts said connector core into a second class of connector (Figure 2: 39/3 and 32 structures are different than 1/39/3), and wherein said second class of connector is different from said first class of connector (Figure 2: combination of 32/39/3 is different than 1/39/3).
As for Claim 18, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the device of claim 16, wherein Qi teaches said first fitting (372/32) further includes an inner plug (321), with a gap (Figure 15: 3212) formed between said outer sleeve (325) and said inner plug (321), and wherein said outer sleeve or said inner plug or both are deformed when a circular portion of the first envelope attachment is inserted into said gap (39 is fit into deformed area of 324; [0148-0149]), such that a frictional force retains the first envelope attachment (39) within the gap (3242) and removably holds the first envelope attachment (39) to said first fitting (32/372).
Qi / Isenhour do not teach wherein said outer sleeve and said inner plug are formed of a resilient, plastic material.
Cote does teach wherein plug / sleeve body (Figure 12: 610 is made of polystyrene [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cote plastic plug / outer sleeve structure to be made out plastic such as polystyrene because polystyrene is a low-cost material relative to metal and polystyrene can also be easily molded to the have different deformations during the manufacturing process.
As for Claim 20, Qi / Isenhour / Cote teach the device of claim 15, wherein Qi further teaches comprising: a second lanyard (Figure 2: 12) having a first end and an opposite, second end (top and bottom of 12), and a second fitting (Figure 2: 121) is attached to said second end of said second lanyard (12 and 121), wherein said second fitting (16) is not structurally compatible to attach to said connector core (16 is designed to be coupled to 14 and not connector core 3 as shown in Figure 3).
Qi does not teach wherein said second fitting is structurally dimensioned to removably hold a second envelope attachment, wherein the second envelope attachment is structurally compatible to attach to the connector core and when attached to the connector core, modifies one or more structural features of the connector core, so that the connector core may physically connect to or within a different connector or port, wherein said second fitting is not structurally compatible to attach to said the connector core.
Isenhour does teach wherein said second fitting (Figure 1a: lanyard string strap holding 30) is structurally dimensioned to removably hold a second envelope attachment (Figure 1a: 30 held by lanyard strap), wherein the second envelope attachment (Figure 1a: 30) is structurally compatible to attach to the connector core (Figure 1a: 30 is attached to 5 via 68) and when attached to the connector core, modifies one or more structural features of the connector core, so that the connector core may physically connect to or within a different connector or port (Figure 1a: wherein 30 is attached to 68/5 it enables the connector 5 to be coupled a port having a wider coupling fitting to fit within 30), wherein said second fitting is not structurally compatible to attach to said the connector core (Figure 1a: 30 is designed to be couple to something wider than element 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Qi to include a 2nd envelope which can modify the connector core to be compatible with a different port than what the connector core was initially designed to fit. This allows the connector to be compatible with many different types of ports in other devices.
Qi / Isenhour do not teach wherein said first end of said second lanyard is attached said clasp (the same clasp to form a y-branch similar to applicant’s disclosure of Figure 3).
Cote does teach a y-branch lanyard wherein said first end of said second lanyard is attached said clasp (See Figure 12: wherein 2nd lanyard is coupled to same clasp 601 as the first lanyard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 2nd lanyard setup to be coupled to the same clasp as shown below in order to reduce the amount tethers used to connector. This allows the device to reduce cost and reduce the need of individual clasp for each lanyard branch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly amended limitations to claims 1, 10, 11 12, 15 and 20 have been rejected in view of newly cited prior art to Isenhour as detailed above.
This action is therefore made FINAL for the reason(s) detailed above.
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 HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - Friday.
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 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874