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 Statement filed on January 15, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Forty-eight (48) sheets of drawings were filed on January 15, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the neck" in 8 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-9; dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burkett et al. (WO 2014/004157 A1), hereafter Burkett.
Regarding claim 1; Burkett discloses a dust and port identification cap (130; see Figures 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B) for fiber optic adapters, comprising:
an opaque or translucent elongate body (the elongate body includes sleeve 134, and end member 139; see Figures 3A, 3B) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (portion 132 is located at the first end and opening 137 is located at the second end), and at least one side extending at least partially between the first end and the second end (see Figures 3A, 3B);
the elongate body comprising a solid mass (139) at least partially disposed between the first and second ends of the body;
a knob portion (142) at the first end extending outward from the solid mass, the knob portion (142) including at least a partially spherical structure at the first end (see Figure 3B), and wherein the neck (138) has a perimeter dimensionally equal to or smaller than a perimeter of the spherical structure (142; see Figure 3B);
an adaptor portion (sleeve 134) at the second end extending outward from the direction opposite the knob portion (142), wherein the adaptor portion (134) has an opening (137) for receiving a fiber optic cable (fiber cable within a ferrule 125; see paragraph 44 and Figures 2, 4A, 4B) therein that continues inward from the second end toward the first end and that terminates at an inner surface between the second end and the first end (see Figures 2, 3A, 3B), the elongate body (134/139) having a continually solid mass central core (solid portions of 139, 183 and 142 between the sleeve and the know 142) between the opening inner surface (inner surface of 137) and a point on the knob (142) at the first end farthest from the inner surface.
Regarding claim 8; Burkett discloses the dust and port identification cap (130) for fiber optic adaptors of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose that the predetermined range of wavelengths/frequencies is selected from: 620 750 nm/400-484 THz; 590-620 nm/484-508 THz; 570-590 nm/508-526 THz; 495-570 nm/526-606 THz; 450-495 nm/606-668 THz; and 380-450 nm/668-789 THz. The examiner notes that transmission of an optical signal of a particular wavelength is an intended use of the dust cap. 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. The dust cap (130) of Burkett meets all of the claimed structural limitations and is capable of performing the intended use of transmitting there-through light within the claimed wavelength/frequency bands.
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 20; Burkett discloses a dust and port identification cap (130; see Figures 2, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B) for fiber optic adapters, comprising:
an opaque or translucent elongate body (body of 130) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see Figures 3A, 3B);
the elongate body comprising a flange (139) disposed at the first end of the body, wherein the flange is substantially rectangular and is positioned in a flange plane which is substantially perpendicular to a main axis of the elongate body (see Figures 3A and 3B, the main axis coinciding with the center axis of sleeve 134);
an adaptor portion (134) at the second end extending outward from the flange (139) in a direction opposite the first end, wherein the adaptor portion (134) has an opening (137) for receiving a fiber optic cable (fiber optic cable within ferrule 125; see Figures 2) therein that continues inward from the second end toward the first end and that terminates at an inner surface between the second end and the first end, the elongate body (body of 130) having a continually solid mass central core between the inner surface and a point on the flange at the first end farthest from the inner surface (139, 138 and 142 are solid);
wherein the flange (139) contains one or more shields (parts 135a, 135b at least partially shield sleeve 134; the material of the flange and portions 138 and 142 formed thereon shield the end of the fiber cable within ferrule 125); and
wherein one or more handles (neck 138 and knob 142 form a handle) or knobs (142) are attached to the flange (139; see Figures 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 18; Burkett discloses the dust and port identification cap (130) for fiber optic adaptors of claim 11 as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose that the predetermined range of wavelengths/frequencies is selected from: 620 750 nm/400-484 THz; 590-620 nm/484-508 THz; 570-590 nm/508-526 THz; 495-570 nm/526-606 THz; 450-495 nm/606-668 THz; and 380-450 nm/668-789 THz. The examiner notes that transmission of an optical signal of a particular wavelength is an intended use of the dust cap. 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. The dust cap (130) of Burkett meets all of the claimed structural limitations and is capable of performing the intended use of transmitting there-through light within the claimed wavelength/frequency bands.
Claims 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmel et al. (US 2008/0304804 A1), hereafter Zimmel.
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 20; Zimmel discloses a dust and port identification cap (transparent or translucent dust plug 201; see Figures 33-36) for fiber optic adapters (see paragraph 49), comprising:
an opaque or translucent elongate body (201) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see Figures 33-36);
the elongate body (201) comprising a flange (207) disposed at the first end of the body, wherein the flange is substantially rectangular and is positioned in a flange plane which is substantially perpendicular to a main axis (205) of the elongate body (201; see Figures 33-36);
an adaptor portion (210) at the second end extending outward from the flange (207) in a direction opposite the first end, wherein the adaptor portion (210) has an opening (209) for receiving a fiber optic cable therein that continues inward from the second end toward the first end and that terminates at an inner surface between the second end and the first end (see Figures 34 and 36), the elongate body (201) having a continually solid mass central core between the inner surface and a point on the flange (207) at the first end farthest from the inner surface (see Figures 34 and 36);
wherein the flange (207) contains one or more shields (the flange part and portions extending therefrom inherently shield the end of the fiber and adapter); and
wherein one or more handles (216) or knobs are attached to the flange (207).
Regarding claim 18; Zimmel discloses the dust and port identification cap (201) for fiber optic adaptors of claim 11 as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose that the predetermined range of wavelengths/frequencies is selected from: 620 750 nm/400-484 THz; 590-620 nm/484-508 THz; 570-590 nm/508-526 THz; 495-570 nm/526-606 THz; 450-495 nm/606-668 THz; and 380-450 nm/668-789 THz. The examiner notes that transmission of an optical signal of a particular wavelength is an intended use of the dust cap. 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. The dust cap (201) of Zimmel meets all of the claimed structural limitations and is capable of performing the intended use of transmitting there-through light within the claimed wavelength/frequency bands.
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.
Claims 2-7 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett et al. (WO 2014/004157 A1), hereafter Burkett, in view of Parkman, III et al. (US 7,945,139 B2), hereafter Parkman; de Jong et al. (US 7,572,066 B2), hereafter de Jong; Nomura (JP 4128508 B2); and Lampert (US 6,547,450 B2).
Regarding claims 2-7 and 12-17; Burkett does not disclose that the elongate body (body of cap 10) is made of a material having a red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet color.
Parkman teaches that dust caps may be clear, yellow, rose, white, etc. to maximize visibility of certain wavelengths of light (see column 7, lines 20-23); de Jong teaches that dust caps may be colored to maximize visibility of certain wavelengths (see column 6, lines 55-63); Nomura teaches that cap bodies (2) may be bright colors, such as white, red, yellow, orange, green, and blue so that it’s easy to classify ferrule types and groups by color (see the 6th paragraph under the BEST-MODE section in the machine translation of JP 4128508 B2), thereby using them for identification; and Lampert teaches that dust caps may be color coded for identification (see column 2, lines 40-42).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the elongate body (134/139) of the dust cap (130) of Burkett of a material having any desired color, including a red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet color for the purpose of maximizing visibility of a desired wavelength of light; for the purpose of color-coding the cap for identification; or to make the cap more aesthetically appealing, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). See MPEP 2144.04 I.
Regarding claim 8; Burkett et al. discloses the dust and port identification cap (130) for fiber optic adaptors of claim 16 as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose that the predetermined range of wavelengths/frequencies is selected from: 620 750 nm/400-484 THz; 590-620 nm/484-508 THz; 570-590 nm/508-526 THz; 495-570 nm/526-606 THz; 450-495 nm/606-668 THz; and 380-450 nm/668-789 THz. The examiner notes that transmission of an optical signal of a particular wavelength is an intended use of the dust cap. 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. The dust cap (130) of Burkett et al. meets all of the claimed structural limitations and is capable of performing the intended use of transmitting there-through light within the claimed wavelength/frequency bands.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkett et al. (WO 2014/004157 A1), hereafter Burkett.
Regarding claims 9 and 10; Burkett discloses the knob (142) having a rounded end and the opening (137) forming a cylindrical void, but does not specifically disclose that the knob has a hemispherical or spherical end having a radius of 2 mm to 4 mm or that the opening (137) has a diameter of 2 mm to 5 mm. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the dimensions of Burkett for the purpose of obtaining a cap (130) that is sized to receive a desired connector ferrule (125) and to provide for an easy gripping of the cap (130), and therefore to provide the knob (142) having any desired shape and size, including a hemispherical or spherical end having a radius of 2 mm to 4 mm, or any other radius value, and an opening (137) having a diameter of 2 mm to 5 mm, or any other desired diameter value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmel et al. (US 2008/0304804 A1), hereafter Zimmel, in view of Parkman, III et al. (US 7,945,139 B2), hereafter Parkman; de Jong et al. (US 7,572,066 B2), hereafter de Jong; Nomura (JP 4128508 B2); and Lampert (US 6,547,450 B2).
Regarding claims 12-17; Zimmel does not disclose that the elongate body (201) is made of a material having a red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet color.
Parkman teaches that dust caps may be clear, yellow, rose, white, etc. to maximize visibility of certain wavelengths of light (see column 7, lines 20-23); de Jong teaches that dust caps may be colored to maximize visibility of certain wavelengths (see column 6, lines 55-63); Nomura teaches that cap bodies (2) may be bright colors, such as white, red, yellow, orange, green, and blue so that it’s easy to classify ferrule types and groups by color (see the 6th paragraph under the BEST-MODE section in the machine translation of JP 4128508 B2), thereby using them for identification; and Lampert teaches that dust caps may be color coded for identification (see column 2, lines 40-42).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the elongate body (201) of the dust cap (201; see Figures 33-36) of Zimmel of a material having any desired color, including a red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet color for the purpose of maximizing visibility of a desired wavelength of light; for the purpose of color-coding the cap for identification; or to make the cap more aesthetically appealing, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). See MPEP 2144.04 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874