The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 6/26/26 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 20 have been amended, claim 18 canceled, and claims 21 – 23 added. Claims 1 – 17 and 19 – 23 are pending.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding amended claim 1 versus the previously-raised rejections under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Applicant asserts (pp. 9 – 11 of the Remarks) that the Matsuda – Owen combination does not meet the limitations defining biasing elements, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and details below how the Matsuda – Owen combination meets all of the limitations recited by amended claim 1.
The following is also noted:
(i) Applicant appears to apply too narrow an interpretation of the limitations “biasing elements” and “mechanical springs”.
(ii) Applicant appears to be mistaken about the essence of the applied Matsuda – Owen combination and to disregard the level of ordinary skill in the art which is more than sufficient to select a proper shape of a slit for inserting an intended object, be it a card in Owen or a fiber-optic connector in Matsuda. Applicant suggests that “The Office Action's proposed combination would require substantially redesigning Owen's printed-circuit-board card dust cover into a different structure: a disc-shaped optical dust-trap element having radially extending slits around an optical axis” (1st complete para. on p. 12). However, Owen is a secondary reference and its teachings (a dust protector for protecting an enclosed space form dust ingress) are applied to the structure of Matsuda to add a dust protector properly/suitably configured for such application.
(iii) Both Matsuda and Owen are prior art analogous to the claimed invention. They do not have to be art analogous to each other, even though both Matsuda and Owen both deal with the same problem of dust ingress prevention.
Applicant's arguments regarding amended claims 11 and 17 (p. 14) versus the previously-raised rejections under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but they moot in view of the new grounds of rejections, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
New claims 21 – 23 are rejected, as detailed below.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 2020/0064531 A1) in view of Owen (US 4,795,354).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda discloses (e.g., Figs. 1 – 6; Abstract; para. 0021 – 0039) an optical fiber coupling device 10 comprising:
a main coupling structure (main tubular member comprising 11) comprising:
an axial channel extending through the main coupling structure, and
a coupling mechanism 11 for coupling an optical fiber connector 8,9 thereto such that, when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism 11 (“ A cover member 8 which covers an optical fiber 9 in the circumferential direction is attached to the tip of the optical fiber 9. The cover member 8 is connected to the inlet 11 of the first connection member 10 by, for example, snap-fitting” at para. 0022), light from the optical fiber connector 8,9 can be transmitted through the axial channel;
a fixation structure 13 (flange) for attaching the optical fiber coupling device 10 to an optical module 20,29 (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0028),
wherein the axial channel extends from a first (right) axial end to a second (left) axial end (in the orientation of Figs. 1 – 5),
wherein the coupling mechanism 11 is arranged at the first (right) axial end,
wherein the fixation structure 13 is configured for attaching the optical fiber coupling device 10 to the optical module 20,29 (using fasteners 15; para. 0026) such that the second (left) axial end overlaps an input window 29 of the optical module 20,29 (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0025).
Matsuda recognizes the problem of contamination ingress into the optical module 20,29 and mitigates it by using a protection mechanism comprising a deformable diaphragm 68 (para. 0035 – 0039) that can be closed when the optical fiber connector 8,9 and/or the main coupling structure 10 is disconnected/unplugged. Matsuda does not teach that the protection mechanism can further comprise a deformable element configured for adaptively deforming to receive therethrough the optical fiber connector 8,9 when the latter is inserted into the main coupling structure (as shown in Fig. 3A). However, Owen discloses (Figs. 1 and 3; Abstract; 2:3 – 50) a protection mechanism 10 (dust cover) comprising a deformable element 36 configured for adaptively deforming to receive therethrough a connector 42, when the connector 42 is inserted into, and coupled to, a coupling mechanism (top portion of 12 in the orientation of Fig. 3), such that the deformable element 36 adapts to a shape of the connector 42 via form-fitting and surrounds the connector 42 and covers a portion of a cross-section of an axial channel around the connector 42 (as seen in Fig. 3); wherein the coupling mechanism is arranged at a first (top)axial end, wherein the deformable element 36 covers the portion of the cross-section of the axial channel around the connector 42 in a region of the axial channel axially arranged between the coupling mechanism and the second (bottom) axial end.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contamination protection in Matsuda can further comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Owen, a deformable element (dust cover) configured for adaptively deforming to receive therethrough the optical fiber connector 8,9, when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism 11, such that the deformable element adapts to a shape of the optical fiber connector 8,9 via form-fitting and surrounds the optical fiber connector 8,9 and covers a portion of a cross-section of the axial channel around the optical fiber connector 8,9. The motivation for such a deformable element is that it can prevent dust ingress into the interior spacer of the main coupling structure when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is unplugged and pulled out of the axial channel. Furthermore, the deformable element comprises a layer (38 in Fig. 3 of Owen) that wipes a front end of the optical fiber connector 8,9, as it being inserted into the interior spacer of the main coupling structure, removes any contamination on the end (“The sealing gasket 36, in a specific, preferred form, includes a first flexible material 38 which can be a woven monofiliment synthetic fiber such as, e.g., nylon. This material 38 contains a slit 40 and the material 38 is preferably woven in such a way that the cut fiber ends, which terminate at the slit 40, are oriented upwarded to provide the actual contact surface for wiping a printed circuit board card 42. The exposed fiber ends provide a brush-like action to wipe dust and other contaminants off the card 42 as it is inserted into the connector 26” at 2:23 – 32 of Owen), and thereby prevents contamination from reaching the interior spacer of the main coupling structure and the optical module (after/if the diaphragm 68 is opened for operation).
The optical fiber coupling device of the Matsuda – Owen combination is illustrated in Figure A which is produced from Fig. 1B of Matsuda by adding, in accordance with the teachings of Owen, a deformable element that prevents dust ingress into the interior space of the main coupling structure 10 and into the optical module 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
790
1225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. The optical fiber coupling device of the Matsuda – Owen combination.
Figure A shows that, in the optical fiber coupling device of the Matsuda – Owen combination, the deformable element (corresponding to 38,44 in Figs. 1 and 3 of Owen) covers a portion of the cross-section of the axial channel around the optical fiber connector in a region of the axial channel axially arranged between the coupling mechanism 11 and the second (left) axial end,
wherein the protection mechanism (corresponding to 38,44,48 in Figs. 1 and 3 of Owen) comprises one or more biasing elements 48 configured for providing a restoring force to the deformable element 38,44, the restoring force keeping the deformable element 38,44 in a non-deformed state when no optical fiber connector is coupled to the coupling mechanism (as in Fig. 1 of Owen) and, when the optical fiber connector is coupled to the coupling mechanism, pressing the deformable element 38,44 against a side (cylindrical) surface of the optical fiber connector to provide tighter coverage of a remaining cross-section of the axial channel around the optical fiber connector (according to Fig. 3 of Owen) (“The sealing gasket 36, in a specific, preferred form, includes a first flexible material 38 which can be a woven monofiliment synthetic fiber such as, e.g., nylon ... Bonded to the first material 38 is a second flexible material 44 which is non-woven and rubber-like … This second layer likewise has a slit 46 down the middle and aligned with slit 40 and insures intimate contact with the card 42 during insertion. The second material 44 also seals the opening when the card 42 is removed. The gasket 36 is completed with a third, relatively rigid material 48, such as a suitable plastic, which contains a particularly formed slot 50” at 2:23 – 43 of Owen, emphasis added).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Matsuda – Owen combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
As an aside and relevant comment for the claims, it is also noted that the optical fiber coupling device of the Matsuda – Owen combination has essential structural features (an adaptor/receptable/holder for an optical fiber connector with an interior deformable element disposed at an end receiving the optical fiber connector) and a principle of operation (protection of the interior space of from contamination and cleaning of the inserted end of the optical fiber connector) that are substantially similar/identical to those of the claimed optical fiber coupling device, as evident from a direct side-by-side comparison of Figure A with Figs. 4 and 6 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the protection mechanism is arranged within the main coupling structure, preferably completely arranged therein.
Regarding claim 4, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the protection mechanism is attached to an interior wall of the axial channel.
Regarding claim 5, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element is substantially planar (in its undeformed state, as shown in Fig. 1 of Owen) and has a shape matching a cross-section of the axial channel (according to Fig. 1 of Owen) so that to completely cover it.
Regarding claim 6, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element extends substantially perpendicular to the axial channel (according to Fig. 1 of Owen) so that to completely cover it.
Regarding claim 7, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element comprises one or more deformable holes or one or more deformable slits 46 (as identified in Fig. 1 of Owen) configured for deforming for receiving therethrough the optical fiber connector coupled to the coupling mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the one or more biasing elements (corresponding to the layer 48 in Fig. 1 of Owen) is made of a “relatively rigid material 48” (2:41 – 42) which is relatively rigid compared to flexible rubber-like material 48. Hence, the Matsuda – Owen combination at the very least renders obvious that the relatively rigid material 48 has a (smaller) degree of flexibility and functions as a mechanical spring in order to prevent damage caused by the end of the layer 48 to the layer 44 when the latter is flexed to an inserted object/connector (as shown in Fig. 3 of Owen) by partially accommodating such flexure with (small) flexure of the material 48.
Regarding claim 10, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1; Fig. 1A of Matsuda) that the main coupling structure is formed of several part and comprises a first structure body (shaped as a cylinder/pipe) and a second structure body (shaped as a cover/lid with an aperture) attached to each other, wherein the protection mechanism is arranged or arrangeable between the first structure body and the second structure body. Forming the first structure body and the second structure body removably attached or integrally attached would be well with ordinary skill in the art. Applicant is reminded that making parts integral or separate is within the ordinary skill in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, B and C).
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner took official notice in the Office Action of 3/26/26 that housings of fiber-optic connector holders/receptables with removably attached parts/portions were well known in the art. Since Applicant has not traversed the official notice, the fact of common knowledge has become applicant admitted prior art. Such removably connected housing would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art and have an advantage of allowing disassembly, e.g., for a repair, cleaning, or repair.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, and further in view of CN 114799489A.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda considers that the optical fiber connector can be used for high-power laser applications, such as for a laser machining head (para. 0025). While Matsuda does not cite standard types/formats of optical fiber connectors for high-power laser applications, CN 114799489A discloses (Figs.10 and 11; para. 0024 – 0030) a laser transmission device 200 (fiber-optic plug) that is for high-power laser applications and connected/coupled to a housing 300 defining an axial channel by a coupling mechanism. cites such type as a QBH coupling standard (e.g., Abstract; para. 0029). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the coupling mechanism in Matsuda can be configured to be compliant with the QBH coupling standard to accommodate a standard optical fiber connector for high-power laser applications.
Claims 9, 11 – 13, and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, and further in view of Larkin (US 4,411,491).
Regarding claim 9, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element comprises one or more layers 38,44 of material arranged on top of each other (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 of Owen; 2:23 – 50). While the Matsuda – Owen combination considers does not teach rotated layers, Larkin discloses (Fig. 7 and 22) a deformable element that comprises two layers 44’,70 of material arranged on top of each other, wherein at least one layer of the one or more layers of material is rotated around the axial channel with respect to another one of the layers of the one or more layers of material.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the layers 38,44 of material arranged on top of each other, as considered by the Matsuda – Owen combination, can be rotated relative to each other in order to misalign their slits (as shown for slits 56, and 72 in Fig. 7 of Larkin) and thereby improve the tightness of the fit/closure.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Matsuda, Owen, and Larkin combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claims 1 and 9) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 1 and 9. Specifically, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination considers an optical fiber coupling device comprising (see Figure A provided above for claim 1):
a main coupling structure comprising:
an axial channel extending through the main coupling structure, wherein the axial channel extends from a first (right) axial end to a second (left) axial end, and
a coupling mechanism (comprising 11) for coupling an optical fiber connector 8,9 thereto such that, when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism, light from the optical fiber connector 8,9 can be transmitted through the axial channel (and passed to the optical module 20); and
a protection mechanism comprising a deformable element (according to the teachings of Owen) configured for deforming to receive therethrough the optical fiber connector 8,9, when the optical fiber connector is coupled to the coupling mechanism, such that the deformable element surrounds the optical fiber connector 8,9 and covers a portion of a cross-section of the axial channel around the optical fiber connector 8,9, wherein the deformable element is configured for trapping therein contaminating particles (by the layer 38 in Owen) liberated by friction between the optical fiber connector 8,9 and the coupling mechanism when coupling the optical fiber connector with the coupling mechanism (as detailed above for claim 1), thereby preventing the contaminating particles from reaching the second (left) axial end (according to the following teachings of Owen: “The sealing gasket 36, in a specific, preferred form, includes a first flexible material 38 which can be a woven monofiliment synthetic fiber such as, e.g., nylon. This material 38 contains a slit 40 and the material 38 is preferably woven in such a way that the cut fiber ends, which terminate at the slit 40, are oriented upwarded to provide the actual contact surface for wiping a printed circuit board card 42. The exposed fiber ends provide a brush-like action to wipe dust and other contaminants off the card 42 as it is inserted into the connector 26” at 2:23 – 32 of Owen, emphasis added),
wherein the deformable element (38,44 in Fig. 1 of Owen which corresponds to 44’,70 in Figs. 6 and 7 of Larkin; “the elastomeric sealing membranes 44' and 70 ” at 8:60 – 61) is a substantially planar, disc-shaped deformable element having a plurality of radially extending deformable slits (56’,72 in Figs 6 and 7 of Larkin) extending radially with respect to a central position (though which fiber 16 passes through, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7) corresponding to the axial channel and;
wherein, when the optical fiber connector is coupled to the coupling mechanism (as in Figure A provided above for claim 1 and a corresponding state in Fig. 7 of Larkin), the deformable element 44’,70 bends by widening of the plurality of radially extending deformable slits 56’,72 (compare Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 of Larkin) and form-fittingly surrounds the optical fiber connector such that a cross-section of the axial channel that is not occupied by, and that surrounds, the optical fiber connector is covered by the deformable element (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination considers that the deformable element comprises or is made of a porous fibrous material, such as synthetic (e.g., nylon) fibers. They provide a wiping/cleaning action and remove contamination from an inserted end of the optical fiber connector (according to the following teachings of Owen: “The sealing gasket 36, in a specific, preferred form, includes a first flexible material 38 which can be a woven monofiliment synthetic fiber such as, e.g., nylon. This material 38 contains a slit 40 and the material 38 is preferably woven in such a way that the cut fiber ends, which terminate at the slit 40, are oriented upwarded to provide the actual contact surface for wiping a printed circuit board card 42. The exposed fiber ends provide a brush-like action to wipe dust and other contaminants off the card 42 as it is inserted into the connector 26” at 2:23 – 32 of Owen, emphasis added). At least some of the contaminating particles liberated by the brushing action would be retained/trapped by microscopic voids among fibers of such woven synthetic fiber.
Regarding claim 21, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination considers that the plurality of deformable slits 56’,72 (as denoted in Figs. 6 and 7 of Larkin; 8:59 – 9:22) extend radially from the central position (accommodating the optical fiber 16). Finding a proper size/length of the slits relative to a radius of the deformable element would be well within ordinary skill in the art.
It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (e.g., a particular selection of deformable materials and their flexibility, a size/diameter of the inserted optical fiber connector relative to the radius of the axial channel, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this regard, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination considers a relative size of the slits a result-effective parameter (9:14 – 22 of Larkin).
Regarding claim 22, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination intends to prevent ingress of contamination into the main coupling structure when no optical fiber connector is coupled to the coupling mechanism. Hence, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination renders obvious that the deformable element in its undeformed state preferably covers the entire cross-section of the axial channel (up to 100%).
Regarding claim 23, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination considers that the deformable element (44’,70 in Figs. 6 and 7 of Larkin; “the elastomeric sealing membranes 44' and 70 ” at 8:60 – 61) comprises first and second disc-shaped porous fibrous layers (each corresponding to 38,44 in Fig. 1 of Owen), each having radially extending deformable slits 56’,72, wherein the radially extending deformable slits of the first layer are rotationally offset from the radially extending deformable slits of the second layer (the deformable slits 56’,72 in the two layers 44',70 are rotationally offset by 90o relative to each other, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7 of Larkin).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, in view of Larkin, and further in view of Mahajan (US 2009/0281226 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin combination considers that the deformable element comprises or is made of a porous fibrous material, such as synthetic (e.g., nylon) fibers which provide a wiping/cleaning action and remove contamination from an inserted end of the optical fiber connector (2:23 – 32 of Owen). Selection of other suitable/materials, such as polyester fibers, would be well within ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Mahajan discloses (Abstract; para. 0085, 0086, 0107, and 0108) polyester fibers for use as diaphragms and in fiber-optic applications, the fibers being thermally stable at temperatures of 70°C or more (Figs. 6 and 7). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, and further in view of CN 114799489A.
Regarding claim 17, the teachings of Matsuda and Owe combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to consider a laser input device for coupling a laser transmission device 8,9 (fiber-optic cable transmitting laser light; para. 0002, 0003, 0025, and 0029 of Matsuda) to an optical module 20 such that laser light transmitted by the laser transmission device 8,9 is fed into the optical module 20, wherein the laser input device comprises (see Figure A provided above for claim 1):
a housing 10 defining an axial channel therethrough from a first (right) axial end to a second (left) axial end,
a coupling mechanism (comprising 11) for coupling a laser transmission device 8,9 thereto such that, when the laser transmission device 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism, light from the laser transmission device can be fed to the optical module 20 through the axial channel; and
a deformable protection element (according to the teachings of Owen) configured for receiving therethrough the laser transmission device 8,9 when the laser transmission device 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism form-fitting to the laser transmission device and filling a cross-section of the axial channel around the laser transmission device.
Matsuda states that the laser transmission device 8,9 (fiber-optic plug) is connected/coupled to the housing 10, for example, by snap-fitting (para. 0022). While Matsuda does not cite other suitable/workable types of connection, CN 114799489A discloses (Figs.10 and 11; para. 0024 – 0030) a laser transmission device 200 (fiber-optic plug) that is connected/coupled to a housing 300 defining an axial channel by a coupling mechanism that comprises protrusions 100 arranged at sidewalls of the axial channel and configured as a pin mechanism for engaging corresponding mechanism features 210,220 of the laser transmission device 200 (as seen in Figs. 10 and 11; para. 0012).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the laser transmission device 8,9 (fiber-optic plug) can be coupled to the housing 10 by a coupling mechanism that comprises protrusions arranged at sidewalls of the axial channel and configured as a pin mechanism, as a suitable/workable mechanism that has a simple and compact structure and can limit rotation of the laser transmission device (fiber-optic plug) relative to the housing (para. 0012 of CN 114799489A).
The Matsuda – Owen – CN114799489A combination considers (Figure A provide above for claim 1) that the deformable protection element is arranged between the protrusions (at the right end) and the second (left) axial end and is configured to trap material particles liberated by mechanical friction between the protrusions and the corresponding mechanism features of an optical fiber connector during coupling or uncoupling (as detailed above for claim 13).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Matsuda – Owen – CN114799489A combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 19, the Matsuda – Owen – CN114799489A combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable protection element is bendable for receiving therethrough the laser transmission device 8,9 when the laser transmission device 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism (as detailed above for claim 1).
Claims 16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, in view of Larkin, and further in view of CN 114799489A.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, the Matsuda – Owen – Larkin – CN 114799489A combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 2 and 13 respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights