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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: minor grammatical error. The claim recites the limitation “second actuating structure is disposed on the cantilever closed to the sliding base”, where “closed to” may have been intended to be “close to.” If “closed” is designating a function or state of the cantilever, it is unclear as to how. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (US 20130195405 A1) in view of Mao (WO 2013042001 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Sanders et al. discloses a receptacle (Figure 1, shuttered housing 120) inserted by an optical connector (Title, “LC Adapter”, a skilled artisan recognizes that LC adapters are for optical connections), comprising:
a receptacle body, having a slot (Figure 1, Figures 7 and 8, the housing 120 has a slot 121), the slot having a coupling part, the coupling part having a coupling through hole, which is coupled with the optical connector inserted through the slot (Figure 2, alignment sleeves 130 together with the retention bores form the coupling part and through-hole structure, as the optical connecting components pass through a hole);
a driving structure, slidably disposed into the slot, wherein when the optical connector is inserted into the slot, the driving structure is pushed by the optical connector to move to a first position, and when the optical connector is moved by a pulling force, the driving structure is pushed by the optical connector to move to a second position (the examiner interprets this as being a structure within the slot that can slide; when the connector is inserted, this structure is pushed along the insertion direction in to a first position);
Sanders et al. discloses an internal sub-assembly frame 160 that is retained in the housing by sliding into the slot 121 (Paragraph 5, see Figure 2 as well), this teaches a structure that is slidably disposed into the slot.
A flexible covering structure being configured to, when the driving structure moves to the first position, bend to reveal the coupling through hole (the examiner interprets this as a shutter moving from an initial position to a first position during insertion, and a flexible covering structure deflects, uncovering the coupling through hole)
Sanders et al. discloses that when the duplex connector is inserted, the front ends of the connector contact the shutter doors 150, 151, causing them to bend/pivot away from the ports and reveal the internal alignment sleeves 130 (Figs 11-13 show this explicitly).
Mao also teaches the use of an elastic mechanism that opens a shutter to uncover the optical pathway.
And when the driving structure moves to a second position as the optical connector is pulled out from the slot, block the coupling through hole (door spring activates as the connector is removed, closing the ports)
Sanders et al. does not expressly teach that the sliding is during connector insertion; the active mechanism is instead shutter doors 150, 151.
Mao teaches a fiber optic connector with a shutter (Title), wherein a connector is inserted into an adapter (Fig. 1a, adapter 200), and the adapter pushes the shutter against an elastic force to turn it into the open position (Fig. 2c); when the connector is pulled out, the elastic mechanism returns the shutter.
A skilled artisan recognizes that the pushing and pulling is only possible if the connector engages with the active mechanism via a sliding motion. As such, the teachings of Mao render obvious the use of a slidably disposed structure that engages an active mechanism within the receptacle body.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention disclosed by Sanders et al. under the teachings of Mao et al. to utilize a sliding motion to actuate the driving mechanism such that a shutter door opens and closes to permit access to the optically connecting region upon connector insertion into the receptacle. This may be accomplished using methods, materials, and geometries known in the art and would predictably result in a device which is resistant to signal loss due to dust and other maladies stemming from an uncovered connecting region, and which easily becomes uncovered for connection through mechanical sliding mechanism.
Regarding claim 2:
Sanders et al. in view of Mao discloses the receptacle of claim 1, wherein:
the receptacle body has a first limiting structure and a second limiting structure,
the first limiting structure is disposed on an inner wall of the slot and is located on a side of the coupling part, and the second limiting structure is disposed on the inner wall adjacent to an insertion opening of the slot.
a skilled artisan recognizes the claimed “limiting structure[s]” as a structural stop or boundary positioned on the interior wall near the alignment sleeves/coupling region. The art does not explicitly mention “first” and “second”, though a first and second limiting structure are taught.
Sanders et al. teach such a structural stop or boundary, in the retention bores 123 that constrain moment of the shutter doors and frame 160, and which act as limiting structures for the movement of components within the receptacle and a connector.
Limiting structures which inhibit the motion of an inserted device are both well established and known in the art, a predictable variation of a limiting structure or a substitution of a known limiting structure is obvious to a skilled artisan. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Sanders et al. and Mao et al. This may be accomplished by using obvious variations of limiting structures for components which are slidably inserted into a receptacle body, for which there are many examples and which are themselves established as a means for restricting motion beyond intended design in the art. This would predictably result in a device which allows for the insertion of an optical connector and which does not insert and extend beyond the connecting region, enabling a secure connection within the receptacle.
Regarding claim 3:
Sanders et al. in view of Mao discloses the receptacle of claim 2, wherein the driving structure (Figures 2-4, shutter carrier frame 150/151/160) has a sliding base located at a bottom of the slot (Figure 4 shows this)
Sanders et al. does not teach a cantilever.
Mao et al. teaches one end of a cantilever is connected to a side of a sliding base (elastic snapper 131 is on cylinder 130, which is part of the sliding base comprised of 120+110)
A skilled artisan recognizes that the snapper, shutter and sliding plate operated with a shutter carrier frame are a functional equivalent to the claimed cantilever. “Connected” comes from the pivoting connection of the shutter.
And the other end of the cantilever extends toward the insertion opening of the slot (p. 9, paragraph 1 teaches that the sliding plate 120 is connected to the shutter 110 and shield cylinder 130, which contains an extended elastic snapper 131, which a POSITA observes as being physically extending as the shutter much reach the port edge to open/block it).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 2 above under the teachings of Sanders et al. and Mao, to incorporate the driving structure with a sliding cantilever. This may be accomplished using ordinary machining techniques and components known in the art, and would predictably reach the design objective of a slidable and easily assembled set of components which both protect the device from dust and other forms of degradation to preserve the signal during connection and reduce signal loss.
Regarding claim 8:
Sanders et al. in view of Mao teaches the receptacle of claim 3, wherein:
Sanders does not teach the guiding structures in the receptacle body as claimed.
Mao et al. teaches a sliding base that has a plurality of first guiding structures (claim 5, pair of side ribs 121 on the sliding plate 120), an inner wall of a bottom of the receptacle body has a second guiding structure corresponding to the first guiding structure, and the second guiding structure slidably contacts with the first guiding structure (claim 5, the ribs 121 are received in guide slots 103).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 3 above under the teachings of Mao to have a first and second guiding structure(s) disposed within the receptacle body. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art (ordinary machining techniques to remove material and make space for grooves, ribs, or other guiding structures), and is a routine design goal in fiber optic connections (they enable a stable and precise connection), as they predictably result in a device which tightly connected and has minimal loss.
Regarding claim 9:
Sanders et al. in view of Mao teaches the receptacle of claim 1, wherein:
Sanders does not teach the limiting structures as claimed.
Mao teaches that the receptacle body has a first limiting structure and a second limiting structure (Figure 4, elastic stopper 123 is formed on the sliding plate 120 as a first limiting structure, claim 9 recites that the shield cylinder 130 is connected with the sliding plate, and a skilled artisan recognizes this as a second limiting structure which controls insertion depth),
the first limiting structure is disposed on an inner wall of the slot and is located on a side of the coupling part (Figure 4, the elastic stopper clearly is disposed on an inner wall when inserted, and on ‘a side’ of the coupling part),
the second limiting structure (shield 130) is disposed on an insertion opening of the slot and extends toward the coupling part (the shield is meant to be disposed on the insertion opening upon insertion), and a bottom surface of the second limiting structure has a guiding slope (p 15, the shield surface “is inclined” to the alignment hole).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Mao et al. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art (components known to the art, and ordinary machining techniques known to a skilled artisan), and would predictably result in a device which is precisely aligned to maximize the efficiency of an optical signal during operation.
Regarding claim 10:
Sanders et al. in view of Mao teaches the receptacle of claim 9, wherein:
There is a first actuating structure (Figure 5, actuating structure[s] are shutter doors 151), wherein the first actuating structure is disposed at a free end (Figure 2, Figure 5, the shutter doors are at the end of the slot opening, and simply need to be pushed inwards, which reads on ‘free end’),
Sanders et al. does not disclose a cantilever or second actuating structure, fourth limiting structure, and the disposition of said structures/actuators.
Mao et al. teaches the cantilever (snapper 131), a second actuating structure (elastic stopper 123 is bent and actuated during interaction), the second actuating structure is disposed on the cantilever closed to the sliding base (stopper 123 close to the base 120, and which is connected to shield 130, therefore meeting the disposition limitation)
and a fourth limiting structure, and the fourth limiting structure is disposed on a bottom of the first actuating structure (the stopper 123 also acts a limiting structure, denoted by its being a ‘stopper’).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 9 above under the teachings of Sanders et al. and Mao to include a cantilever, first/second actuating structure, and a fourth limiting structure using methods and machining techniques known to the art. The use of stopping and actuating structures is well established as a means for ensuring precise optical connections for a given connector design, and would be an obvious and routine modification of known design elements on top of being a known design objective in the art, which predictably results in a device that maintains a steady optical connection and low loss.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (US 20130195405 A1) in view of Mao (WO 2013042001 A1) and further in view of Duran (US 6688780 B2).
Regarding claim 4:
Sanders et al. in view of Mao discloses the receptacle of claim 3, wherein
Sanders et al. does not expressly disclose the actuating or limiting structures.
Mao discloses a cantilever has a first actuating structure (the elastic snapper 131 has a lip at the end), the first actuating structure is disposed at a free end of the cantilever (Fig 1b, page 9, the shutter 110 is pivotally disclosed and engages with the port opening, this is treated as an actuating face of an extending structure, which is interpreted as an equivalent to the cantilever)
a second actuating structure the second actuating structure is disposed on the cantilever closed to the sliding base (Figure 4, elastic stopper 123 is connected to the cylinder 130 with the snapper/cantilever equivalent 131),
Mao does not disclose a third limiting structure on a first actuator.
Duran discloses a first actuating structure (Figure 1, shutter 650) and a third limiting structure (Figure 4, fasteners 410), and the third limiting structure is disposed on both sides of the first actuating structure (Figure 4, they are located on the sides of the shutter when combined with the shutter).
Duran does not explicitly disclose that these are part of the same actuating structure as a cantilever with a sliding base and a second actuating structure (though one is present, for example, in the base and bumper 710 and 702 divided by fulcrum 714 in Figure 7). However, this teaching of a limiting structure to restrict the motion of the inserted connector, cantilever, and actuators would have made the structure obvious to a skilled artisan.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 3 above under the teachings of Mao and Duran to include a first and second actuating structure with a third limiting structure for the cantilever on a sliding base as it would have enabled the connector to actuate the shutter only during operation, reducing dust contamination and therefore loss during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 11, and 12 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 the allowable subject matter. The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious:
The receptacle as defined by claim 5, wherein:
when the optical connector is inserted into the slot, the optical connector is leaned against the first leaning surface and pushes the driving structure to move to the first position, causing the second actuating structure to contact the first limiting position, and the cantilever is driven to bend downward by a force of the first limiting structure during a moving process of the optical connector;
when the driving structure moves to the first position, the first leaning surface is separated from the optical connector.
The use of a connector leaning into a driving structure with a multitude of actuating structure and a limiting structure wherein the cantilever specifically bends downwards and the driving structure then separates from the optical connector is not observed in the prior art. While some of these components are present in the prior art, they are confined to the receptacle body or are not part of a cantilevered structure on a sliding base as claimed; or
The receptacle as defined by claim 6, wherein:
after the first leaning surface is separated from the optical connector, the optical connector moves toward the coupling part, causing the optical connector to press the cantilever;
when the optical connector is coupled with the coupling part, the first actuating structure is embedded into a groove at a bottom of the optical connector, and a height of the third limiting structure is lower than a height of the second limiting structure.
A leaning surface that behaves as claimed pressing into a cantilever, and a first actuating structure with the specific geometric properties related to height are not observed in the prior art as claimed; or
The receptacle as defined by claim 7, wherein:
when the optical connector is pulled by the pulling force, a side wall of a groove at a bottom of the optical connector is leaned against the second leaning surface of the first actuating structure;
as the optical connector moves, the driving structure is driven to move to the second position, so that the flexible covering structure returns to cover the coupling part, and the third limiting structure moves along a bottom surface of the second limiting structure as the driving structure moves;
when the driving structure moves to the second position, the first actuating structure is separated from the groove, and the third limiting structure is separated from the second limiting structure, so that the cantilever returns to an unbending structure.
The combination of cause-and-effect leading to translational forces actuating a first actuating structure, a flexible covering structure (shutter), and a third limiting structure to behave as claimed when a driving structure moves into a second position is not observed in the prior art as claimed; or
The receptacle as defined by claim 11, wherein:
when the optical connector is pulled by the pulling force, a side wall of a groove at a bottom of the optical connector is leaned against the second leaning surface of the first actuating structure;
as the optical connector moves, the driving structure is driven to move to the second position, so that the flexible covering structure returns to cover the coupling part, and the third limiting structure moves along a bottom surface of the second limiting structure as the driving structure moves; when the driving structure moves to the second position, the first actuating structure is separated from the groove, and the third limiting structure is separated from the second limiting structure, so that the cantilever returns to an unbending structure.
The optical connector being pulled and side wall leaning against a second leaning surface of a first actuating structure, the optical connector’s motion driving the driving structure causing a covering/shutter to open/close, and the combination of positionings of the driving structure and optical connector and cantilever with respect to the limiting and actuating structures are not observed in the prior art as claimed; or
The receptacle as defined by claim 12, wherein:
when the optical connector is pulled by the pulling force, a side wall of a groove of the optical connector is leaned against the second leaning surface of the first actuating structure;
as the optical connector moves, the driving structure is driven to move toward the second position;
when the driving structure moves to the second position, the flexible covering structure returns to cover the coupling part, the fourth limiting structure is leaned against the guiding slope, the first actuating structure is separated from the groove, and the fourth limiting structure accumulates an elastic force by bending the cantilever to move along the guiding slope, so that the cantilever returns to an unbending structure.
The combination of optical connector forces and movement with respect the driving structure, flexible covering/shutter, and limiting/actuating structures is not observed in the prior art as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, THOMAS A HOLLWEG can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874