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 .
Detailed Action
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10 and 13-17, drawn to universal tray for holding a plurality of workpieces, classified in g02b, classified in G02B 6/4453.
II. Claims 11-12, drawn to a kit for use with optical waveguides, classified in g02b 6/4453.
As these two groups represent combination (group II) and sub-combination (group I) that each require different subclass search and that groups II does not necessarily need the particularities (i.e., tapered elastomer ) of sub-combination and can be used with non-tapered elastomer or a plastic film. While, group I for example can be used as a gap separation between a stacked tray of transceivers.
In a telephone conversation, the applicant (Mr. Frame) elected to prosecute group I invention without traverse. Thus claims 11-12 are herein withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 13-14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Dinh” et al., US 6533472 B1.
With regard to claim 1, Dinh teaches a “universal tray” for holding a plurality of workpieces (see figs. 1-23, summary/abstract), comprising:
a frame (frame around trays; or one tray on fig. 14) comprising
a plurality of openings (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14 with perimeter and center openings); a plurality of fingers 78
PNG
media_image1.png
461
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
299
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
surrounding each of the plurality of openings (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14), the plurality of fingers 78 extending toward a center of a respective opening (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14); and
wherein a top surface of the finger(s)78 is sloped downward as it extends toward the center of the respective opening (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14).
However, Dinh does not teach that the an elastomer is disposed on a top surface of each of the plurality of fingers. Nevertheless, Dinh’s fingers are shaped with resiliency which are movable radially (col. 6, lines 31-49); Dinh further uses elastomer for purpose of strain relief support (col. 5. lines 39-42). Thus it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art when the invention was made to modify Din’s fingers with further use of elastomer coated on its top/bottom surface(s) so as to provide strain relief in between the stack of the trays when they are assembled within its frame package,
With regard to claim 13, Dinh teaches universal tray for holding a plurality of workpieces (see figs. 1-23, summary/abstract), comprising:
a frame (frame around trays; or one tray on fig. 14) comprising a plurality of openings (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14 with perimeter and center openings); a plurality of fingers 78 surrounding each of the plurality of openings (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14), each finger extending toward a center of a respective opening (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14); and wherein a top surface of each elastomer finger is sloped downward as it extends toward the center of the respective opening (clearly shown in at least figs. 5 and 14).
However, Dinh does not teach that the above fingers are elastomer fingers. Nevertheless, Dinh’s fingers are shaped with resiliency which are movable radially (col. 6, lines 31-49); Dinh further uses elastomer for purpose of strain relief support (col. 5. lines 39-42). Thus it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art when the invention was made to modify Din’s fingers using elastomer material so as to provide strain relief in between the stack of the trays when they are assembled within its frame package,
The arguments presented in in rejection of claims 1 and 13, including the obviousness and motivation are incorporated in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. The universal tray of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fingers are an integral part of the frame such that the plurality of fingers extend from the frame (shown in at least figs. 5 and 14).
3. The universal tray of claim 1, wherein hollow inserts are disposed around the plurality of openings, and the plurality of fingers extend from the hollow inserts (shown in at least figs. 1-5) .
4. The universal tray of claim 1, wherein the elastomer comprises an elastomer layer molded onto the top surface of the plurality of fingers, wherein the elastomer layer is tapered such that the elastomer layer is thicker at a proximal end near the frame than at a distal end of each finger.
5. The universal tray of claim 1, further comprising a downward support extending downward from the frame to engage with a top surface of a frame of an adjacent tray (shown in at least figs. 1-5 and 11-15).
14. The universal tray of claim 13, wherein each finger is thicker at a proximal end near the frame than at a distal end of the elastomer finger (shown in at least fig. 15). .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-10 and 15-17 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.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
JP H06171168 A
US 1964499 A
US 20190064463 A1
US 6533472 B1
ES 2377368 T3
AU 6217396 A
US 5661954 A
US 5660024 A
GB 2575529 A
US 4815919 A
US 4026540 A
US 6085898 A
US 20080205028 A1
US 20070047895 A1
US 20130126375 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874