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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 26, 2022 and April 25, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because no reference character was used to designate an element in figure 1 interpreted to be the dust cap as shown in figure 7.
Figure 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Additionally, the extra label “(FIG. 8B)” in figure 8a should be removed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0004 line 2, “is, however, desire…” should read “it is, however, the desire…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 13 include the term “base member” but the specification refers to this element as a “closure member” in paragraph 47. The terms in the specification should be the same terms used in the claims for clarity. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the base member of claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 to be closure member 190 described in paragraph 47.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1 and 8: The examiner suggests changing “the flexible ends” to “the flexible arms. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the flexible ends to be the flexible arms.
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.
Claims 6 and 13 are 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.
Claims 6 and 13 recite “the flexible arms extend over a greater axial extent of the associated optical fiber connector.” This limitation renders the claims indefinite because the term “greater” in claims 6 and 13 is a term of comparison. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are because it is unclear what the point of reference from which “greater” being measured. The term “greater” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as the flexible arms extend over a portion of the associated optical fiber connector as disclosed in paragraph [0044] of the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US Patent 11,092,752).
Regarding claims 1 and 8; Li discloses a bulkhead adapter assembly and method of assembling a bulkhead adapter (see figures 19 through 23) comprising:
A bulkhead adapter assembly (optical fiber adapter figure 19) configured at a first end to receive an associated optical fiber connector housing a terminal end of an associate fiber (see abstract), and is joined to an associated closure at a second end, the bulkhead adapter assembly comprising:
An elongated holder (see figure 19 clamping seat 34 and fixing seat 37) having at least first and second flexible arms (85 and 86) extending axially outwardly from a first end of the holder including and opening (pin hole II 81) dimension to receive the associated optical fiber therein,
A shoulder (pressing buckle 86) formed at a terminal end of each of the flexible ends (pressing arm I 85) wherein each shoulder has an undercut (see figure 23) extending perpendicularly to the first axis that is configured to operatively engage the associated optical fiber connector, a central portion of the holder (Pin seat II 82) including a recess extending inwardly from the second end (fixing seat 37) of the holder, and an opening (Pin hole 81) through the central portion that receives the associated optical fiber therethrough;
A sleeve (insertion pin 38) dimensioned for axial receipt in the holder recess (mounting in the fixing seat 37 and clamping seat 34),
A hollow body (outer housing 36) having a recess that receives (see page 24, column 10, lines 65-67 and page 25, column 11, lines 1-3) the holder and sleeve in a first end of the body,
The body including an externally threaded first region (59) and an internally threaded second region (51);
A nut (fixing nut 62) including an internally threaded region (corresponding to the external thread I 59) that engages the hollow body (see page 21, column 4, lines 23-26);
A base member (Locking frame 105) having an externally threaded region that threadedly interconnects with the internally threaded second region of the body (see page 21, column 4, lines 64-67 and page 22, column 5, lines 1-8).
Regarding claims 3 and 10; Li discloses a first seal member and method of assembling a first seal member interposed between the nut and the body (see page 21, column 4, lines 27 and 28) and a second seal member interposed between the body and body and member (107 see page 23, column 12, line 30).
Regarding claims 4 and 11; Li discloses flexible arms and method of assembly (see figure 23) that includes:
A tapered surface (86) adjacent a terminal end thereof configured to abuttingly engage the associated optical fiber connector such that the arms diverge away from each other as the associated optical fiber connector is advanced relative to the flexible arms (85 and 86).
Regarding claims 5 and 12; Li discloses flexible arms and method of assembly (see figure 23) that includes:
A tapered surface (86) adjacent a terminal end thereof configured to abuttingly engage the associated optical fiber connector such that the arms diverge away from each other as the associated optical fiber connector is advanced relative to the flexible arms (85 and 86).
Regarding claims 6 and 13; Li discloses (see figure 23) the central portion (82) and method of assembly of the central portion (82) of the holder is located axially inward from terminal ends of the first and second flexible arms (85 and 86) such that arms extend over a greater axial extent of the associated optical fiber connector when received in the holder recess (column 12, lines 45-58 and col. 12, lines 37-44. When the optical fiber is inserted into the pin seat II (82), the elastic pressing arms (85) and elastic pressing buckle (86) will inherently extend over a portion of the optical fiber).
The examiner notes in claim 6 and 13 that the limitation " wherein the nut includes one or more indentations/notches configured to receive a mating, specially configured associated tool to rotate the nut onto the body and retain the holder and sleeve in the body" is an intended use of the nut. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Regarding claims 7 and 14; Li discloses (see figure 19) the nut (61) and method of assembly of the nut (61) includes one or more indentations/notches configured to receive a mating.
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) 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Patent 11,092,752) in view of Allen (US 2010/0111484 A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 9 Li discloses a sleeve (see figure 19) but does not teach a specific material of the sleeve.
Allen teaches a ceramic sleeve in a component (see paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use ceramic as the material for a sleeve for its stability and precision when aligning optical fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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.
/T.N.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874