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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0244039 to Higley et al.
In regards to claims 1 and 18, Higley recites a fiber optic adapter and method of fiber optic adapter assembly (Figures 4-10), comprising: a housing (204, 206, 208 together) including (i) a hollow interior (202), and (ii) an interior barrier wall (216) disposed within the hollow interior; and an insert (200b) including a wall (244); wherein at least one of the housing or the insert includes rivet extensions (244) protruding from the interior barrier wall or the wall, respectively (Figure 8); wherein at least one of the housing or the insert includes rivet alignment openings (222) formed in the interior barrier wall or the wall, respectively (Figures 6 & 7); and wherein the housing is configured to receive the insert in the hollow interior such that the rivet alignment openings at least partially receive the rivet extensions, and the wall of the insert abuts the interior barrier wall of the housing.
In regards to claim 2, Higley recites the housing defines a one-piece structure.
In regards to claim 3, Higley recites fiber alignment sleeves (218a) disposed between the housing and the insert, wherein the fiber alignment sleeves pass at least partially through the interior barrier wall of the housing and the wall of the insert. (Figure 10; [0041])
In regards to claim 5, Higley recites sleeve retaining extensions (218a) protruding from one side of the interior barrier wall.
In regards to claim 8, Higley recites the insert includes the rivet extensions protruding from a first side of the wall, and the interior barrier wall of the housing includes the rivet alignment openings.
In regards to claim 9, Higley recites the insert comprises sleeve retaining extensions (218a) protruding from one side of the wall. [0041]
In regards to claim 12, Higley recites both the interior barrier wall of the housing and the wall of the insert include the rivet extensions and the rivet alignment openings.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0244039 to Higley et al.
In regards to claim 4, although Higley does not expressly recite the housing includes the rivet extensions protruding from a first side of the interior barrier wall, and the insert includes the rivet alignment openings formed in the wall, Higley does recite the opposite, the rivet extensions protruding from the insert and the rivet alignment openings formed in the housing. Since the extensions and alignment openings are complementary and meant to be mated, further since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the extensions one of the components and the alignment openings on the other especially since the device would function equally as well with either configuration. St Regis Paper Co v Bemus Co 193 USPQ 8
In regards to claims 6, 7, 10 and 11, Higley recites each of the sleeve retaining extensions (218a) includes an opening extending therethrough but fails to expressly disclose each of the sleeve retaining extensions including an inner radial step, the inner radial step defines a change in diameter of the opening of the sleeve retaining extensions, and acts as a stop for engaging with a fiber alignment sleeve positioned within the opening. However, the inclusion of an inner radial step or a taper is a commonly included feature in fiber adapters in order to protect the integrity of the optical fibers when inserted into the sleeve. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the sleeve retaining extensions to include an inner radial step, the inner radial step defines a change in diameter of the opening of the sleeve retaining extensions, and acts as a stop for engaging with a fiber alignment sleeve positioned within the opening.
In regards to claims 13 and 15, Higley recites both the interior barrier wall of the housing and the wall of the insert include sleeve retaining extensions (218) [0041] and each of the sleeve retaining extensions including an opening extending therethrough. Although Higley does not expressly recite the sleeve retaining extensions including an inner radial step and wherein the inner radial steps of the sleeve retaining extensions prevent removal of the fiber alignment sleeves out of the sleeve retaining extensions, the inclusion of an inner radial step or a taper is a commonly included feature in fiber adapters in order to protect the integrity of the optical fibers when inserted into the sleeve. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the sleeve retaining extensions to include an inner radial step and wherein the inner radial steps of the sleeve retaining extensions prevent removal of the fiber alignment sleeves out of the sleeve retaining extensions. (Figure 10)
In regards to claim 14, Higley recites the sleeve retaining extensions of the housing receive a first end of fiber alignment sleeves and the sleeve retaining extensions of the insert receive a second end of the fiber alignment sleeves, with the housing and the insert retaining the fiber alignment sleeves therebetween.
In regards to claim 16, Higley recites the rivet extensions and the rivet alignment openings are disposed around or between the sleeve retaining extensions to provide clearance for connection to the sleeve retaining extensions.
In regards to claim 17, although Higley does not expressly recite the rivet extensions are configured to be at least partially deformed to permanently secure the insert to the housing, the limitation of “configured to” recitation only required the element is sufficient to perform the given function. The statement does not define any structure and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish in a device claim.
In regards to claim 19, Higley recites both the interior barrier wall of the housing and the wall of the insert include sleeve retaining extensions (218a) each including an opening extending therethrough [0041]; and wherein the method comprises inserting a first end of fiber alignment sleeves into the sleeve retaining extensions of the housing before passage of the insert into the hollow interior of the housing, and further comprising inserting a second end of the fiber alignment sleeves into the sleeve retaining extensions of the insert during sliding of the insert within the hollow interior of the housing, to retain the fiber alignment sleeves between the housing and the insert. But Higley fails to expressly recite the sleeve retaining extensions including an inner radial step. However, the inclusion of an inner radial step or a taper is a commonly included feature in fiber adapters in order to protect the integrity of the optical fibers when inserted into the sleeve. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the sleeve retaining extensions to include an inner radial step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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 prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest deforming ends of the rivet extensions to permanently couple the housing and the insert in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. None of the documents cited by the Examiner discloses or reasonably suggests the allowable subject matter discussed above.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of form PTO-1449. None of the references submitted by Applicant discloses or reasonably suggest the allowable subject matter discussed above.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights