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 § 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.
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.
Claims 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WO 2015/144883 (“COENGRACHT”).
Regarding claim 23, COENGRACHT teaches a multiport for making optical connections (FIG. 19), comprising: a shell (815) extending between a first end and a second end positioned opposite the first end in a longitudinal direction (the enclosure of pg. 15, lines 18-33; FIG. 19), the shell defining a cavity (853) of the multiport; an input port (853); a connection port comprising: an optical connector opening (814) extending from an outer surface of the multiport toward the cavity of the multiport; and a connection port passageway (along axis 866); and one or more optical fibers (pg. 18, lines 1-29) disposed within the cavity of the multiport and routed from one or more connection ports of the plurality of connection ports toward the input port (FIG. 19; at 854); a first mounting feature adjacent to the first end of the multiport (868), the first mounting feature comprising a mounting tab; and a second mounting feature (854) adjacent to the second end of the multiport, the second mounting feature comprising a through hole (858) (FIG. 19).
COENGRACHT does not teach a plurality of connection ports. Such a modification appears to merely involve duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the connection port of COENGRACHT as set forth in the instant claim. The motivation would have been to utilize the multiport with multiple optical signals.
Regarding claim 24, COENGRACHT teaches that the connection port is disposed on the first end of the shell (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 25, COENGRACHT teaches that the input port is configured to receive to a fiber optic connector or an input tether (820).
Regarding claim 26, COENGRACHT teaches that for the connection port, the optical connector opening defines at least a portion of the connection port passageway (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 27, COENGRACHT teaches that for the connection port, the optical connector opening defines the connection port passageway (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 28, COENGRACHT teaches an optical splitter disposed within the cavity of the multiport, wherein the one or more optical fibers are routed toward the input port through the optical splitter (pg. 5, line 31 – pg. 6, line 15).
Regarding claim 29, COENGRACHT teaches that the connection port is a portion of the shell (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 30, COENGRACHT teaches that the connection port is formed as a molded portion of the shell (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 31, COENGRACHT teaches that the shell comprises a first piece and a second piece; and each of the plurality of connection ports is formed as a molded portion of the first piece of the shell (FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 32, COENGRACHT teaches that the first mounting feature is integral with the second piece of the shell (FIG. 11; pg. 14, lines 23-29).
Regarding claim 33, COENGRACHT teaches that the connection port is disposed on the first end of the shell (FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 34, COENGRACHT teaches that the first mounting feature is integral with the second piece of the shell (FIG. 11; pg. 14, lines 23-29).
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COENGRACHT in view of US 2005/0271338 (“LIVINGSTON”).
COENGRACHT renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 23. COENGRACHT does not teach marking indicia for identifying each of the plurality of connection ports, wherein the marking indicia comprises text or color-coding on the shell. LIVINGSTON teaches marking indicia for identifying each of a plurality of connection ports, wherein the marking indicia comprises text or color-coding (pars. [0007], [0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include marking indicia in the multiport of COENGRACHT, as taught by LIVINGSTON. The motivation would have been to provide identification for each of the plurality of connection ports.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22, 38, and 39 are allowed.
Claim 35 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole and as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the plurality of connection ports comprises a port width density of at least one connection port per 20 millimeters of width of the multiport.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Thomas 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights