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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 10, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth et al (US 8,083,547 B2). Roth teaches:
10/20. A fiber optic adapter assembly (Figs. 1-8), comprising:
an adapter body (112) having an outer surface and an inner surface (see Fig. 7), the inner surface defining at least in part a main opening (see where 121 points to in Fig. 7) between a first side (at 112; rear) and a second side (at 119; front), the second side (at 119) receiving a first multi-fiber ferrule connector (400);
a retention cap (240) attached to the first side (at 112; rear) of the adapter body (112) and capable of receiving a second multi-fiber ferrule connector (part of 150, see Fig. 3; C5 L32-41);
a spring clip (116, 118) disposed around at least a portion of the outer surface of the adapter body (112) (see Fig. 8) and between an inside portion of the retention cap (240) and the outer surface of the adapter body (112) (C6 L17-28); and
a first shutter (124) and a second shutter (124) movably engaging the spring clip (116, 118), the adapter body (112) and the retention cap (240) (C7 L54 – C8 L3).
13. The fiber optic adapter assembly according to claim 10, wherein the adapter body has a first side surface and a second side surface (see Fig. 7), and
the adapter body (112) further comprises: a first pair of pivot arms (the body portions of 119 that surround the top and bottom cutouts of 119, see Fig. 7) adjacent the first side surface (either) and extending longitudinally away from a forward facing surface around the main opening (at 119, 121 in Fig. 7), each of the first pair of pivot arms having a pivot end (the ends are considered the “pivot end” given no other structure that would differentiate from the end of anything); and
a second pair of pivot arms (the body portions of 119 that surround the top and bottom cutouts of 119, see Fig. 7) adjacent the second side surface (the opposite side not shown in Fig. 7) and extending longitudinally away from the forward facing surface around the main opening (at 119, 121 in Fig. 7), each of the second pair of pivot arms having a pivot end (the ends are considered the “pivot end” given no other structure that would differentiate from the end of anything).
19. The fiber optic adapter assembly according to claim 10, wherein the spring clip (116, 118) has a plurality of fingers (the body of 116 and 118 that surround the four openings 133) to engage the first shutter (124) and a plurality of fingers (the body of 116 and 118 that surround the four openings 133) to engage the second shutter (124) (each 116 and 118 have two fingers, one on top and one on bottom, making four total) (Fig. 7).
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 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth.
Regarding claim 11, Roth shows MT type multi-fiber ferrules (see Fig. 2) in use with the assembly so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try an MPO type multi-fiber, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. A MPO type connector would be predictable in view of Roth since both use MT type multi-fiber ferrules and for the same reason a person of ordinary skill the art would expect this type of connector to succeed in Roth and Lei.
Regarding the 18, Roth shows the spring clip (116, 118) having receptacles (131) for receiving corresponding tabs (126) in the adapter body (112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try reversing the receptacle and tab structure so the tab is in the spring clip and the receptacle is in the adapter body, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. This solution would be predictable since the two components already connect by a tab and receptable assembly and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the reverse tab and receptable structure to succeed in Roth since this assembly set up would similarly connect the two components securely.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lei et al (WO 2020/057528 A1).
Roth teaches the fiber optic adapter assembly previously discussed.
Roth does not teach expressly:
12. The fiber optic adapter assembly according to claim 10, wherein the first shutter has a protrusion at a free end thereof, and the second shutter has a recess at a free end thereof to receive the protrusion from the first shutter.
Lei teaches a fiber optic adapter assembly (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
wherein the first shutter (2) has a protrusion (part of 22) at a free end thereof, and the second shutter (2) has a recess (part of 22) at a free end thereof to receive the protrusion from the first shutter (P6 of detailed description of the translation).
Roth and Lei are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic adapter assemblies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shutters of Roth to include a protrusion and recess type shutter as taught by Lei.
The motivation for doing so would have been to create a more secure shutter closures state with overlapping doors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claims 14-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-9: These claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a fiber optic assembly, comprising the claimed adapter body, pivot arms, latch arm, shutters, retention cap and spring clip the extends around and engages an outer portion of the adapter body with fingers contacting each shutter,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 14-17: These claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a fiber optic assembly, comprising the claimed adapter body, pivot arms, latch arm, shutters, retention cap and spring clip the extends around and engages an outer portion of the adapter body with fingers contacting each shutter,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874