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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/6/25 and 1/16/25 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 10, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limbert (US 2014/0056562 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Limbert discloses a dual-core connector 110, comprising a plug assembly 112 and a clamping assembly 114 (Fig. 3; [0037]-[0038]), wherein
the plug assembly 112 comprises a housing and at least two ferrules, wherein the housing has a through hole penetrating through a first surface and a second surface of the housing that are opposite to each other, the at least two ferrules are located in the housing and extend along a length direction of the housing, and axes of the ferrules are respectively located on two sides of the through hole (Figs. 4a and 8; [0041]); and
the clamping assembly 114 comprises a clamping component 118 and a shaft 131, wherein one end of the shaft 131 is connected to the clamping component 118, the other end of the shaft 131 is pushed into the through hole, and wherein the shaft 131 is pushed into the housing to a locking position for the shaft and the housing to lock each other (Fig. 4c; [0045]).
However, Limbert does not disclose an arrangement wherein the shaft is rotatably connected in the through hole, and wherein the shaft is rotatable relative to the housing to a locking position for the shaft and the housing to lock each other.
Rotational connection to achieve a locking arrangement, such as a screw, is well known in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 2, Limbert renders obvious the dual-core connector as discussed above. In addition, Limbert discloses the shaft 131 is located on one side of the first surface of the housing, the shaft 131 is detachably inserted into one end of the through hole and penetrates the first surface; and when the shaft 131 is located on one side of the second surface of the housing, the shaft is detachably inserted into one end of the through hole and penetrates the second surface (Fig. 4a; [0045]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 8, Limbert renders obvious the dual-core connector as discussed above. Also, Limbert discloses the dual-core connector further comprises a positioning assembly located on the housing and the clamping component, and the positioning assembly is configured to prevent, when the shaft and the housing lock each other, the housing and the clamping component from rotating relative to each other ([0041]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 10, Limbert renders obvious the dual-core connector as discussed above. Also, Limbert discloses the housing comprises a sleeve and a socket; the sleeve is sleeved outside the socket; and one end of each of the at least two ferrules is inserted into the socket, and the other end of each of the ferrules is inserted into the sleeve (Fig. 8; [0048]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 19, Limbert discloses a connection system, comprising a dual-core connector 110 and an adapter 11 (Fig. 3; [0035]), wherein
the dual-core connector 110 comprises a plug assembly 112 and a clamping assembly 114 (Fig. 3; [0037]-[0038]), wherein the plug assembly 112 comprises a housing and at least two ferrules, wherein the housing has a through hole penetrating through a first surface and a second surface of the housing that are opposite to each other, the at least two ferrules are located in the housing and extend along a length direction of the housing, and axes of the ferrules are respectively located on two sides of the through hole (Figs. 4a and 8; [0041]);
the clamping assembly 114 comprises a clamping component 118 and a shaft 131, wherein one end of the shaft 131 is connected to the clamping component 118, the other end of the shaft is pushed into the through hole, and wherein the shaft is pushed into the housing to a locking position for the shaft and the housing to lock each other (Fig. 4c; [0045]); and
the dual-core connector 110 is inserted into the adapter 11, and the dual-core connector110 and the adapter 11 are clamped to each other through a clamping component 118 (Figs 3 and 4c; [0038]).
However, Limbert does not disclose an arrangement wherein the shaft is rotatably connected in the through hole, and wherein the shaft is rotatable relative to the housing to a locking position for the shaft and the housing to lock each other.
Rotational connection to achieve a locking arrangement, such as a screw, is well known in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 20, Limbert renders obvious the dual-core connector as discussed above. In addition, Limbert discloses when the shaft is located on one side of the first surface of the housing, the shaft 131 is detachably inserted into one end of the through hole that penetrates the first surface; and when the shaft is located on one side of the second surface of the housing, the shaft is detachably inserted into one end of the through hole that penetrates the second surface (Figs. 4a-4c; [0041]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, and 11-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re. Claims 3-7, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the dual-core connector as required by the claims, specifically wherein an inner circumferential wall of the through hole has one or more first protrusions, and two side surfaces of each of the first protrusions have a same distance from the housing; an outer circumferential wall of the shaft has one or more second protrusions, and the second protrusions are located on one end of the shaft away from the clamping component; and when the shaft is in the locking position, a side face of the second protrusion facing the clamping component abuts against one side face of the first protrusion away from the clamping component.
Re. Claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the dual-core connector as required by the claims, specifically wherein: the positioning assembly comprises a first positioning component and two second positioning components; the first positioning component is connected to a surface of the clamping component close to the housing; one of the two second positioning components is connected to the first surface, and the other one of the two second positioning components is connected to the second surface; and the two second positioning components are both located on a rotation track of the first positioning component, and when the shaft and the housing lock each other, one of the two second positioning components is clamped to the first positioning component.
Re. Claim 11, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the dual-core connector as required by the claims, specifically wherein two opposite outer walls of the sleeve each has a jack, and the two jacks are opposite to each other; and wherein the socket has an insertion cylinder inside, wherein the insertion cylinder is located between the two jacks, and two ends of the insertion cylinder are respectively opposite to and connected to the two jacks to form the through hole.
Re. Claims 12-18, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the dual-core connector as required by the claims, specifically wherein: the clamping component comprises a bottom plate and a cantilever; the bottom plate is connected to the shaft along a plate surface of the bottom plate; and a fixed end of the cantilever is connected to the bottom plate, a free end of the cantilever is spaced from the bottom plate, and the free end of the cantilever has a clamping protrusion.
The most applicable prior art, Limbert (US 2014/0056562 A1), fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 1/6/25