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 .
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Paragraph 0038: “Fig. 3 is a trimetric view of dust cap 50 in both LC and SC versions, showing tether 52, main cap portion 54, and holder securing feature 56…. Main cap portion 54 protects the ferrule end face from damage and contamination. Retaining feature 56 fits into the ferrule assembly holding fixture used during splicing…”
Element 56 has two names used in the same paragraph.
Paragraphs 52-55:
Claim 5 makes reference to a “holding feature” lacking antecedent basis in the claims and also absent from the specification.
As in paragraph 54, posts 242/244 are not clearly referenced as holding features.
Similarly, claim 6 references a “push down tab” found nowhere in the specification.
As in paragraphs 23, 53, and 55, the specification defines ejector lever 268 and ejector arm 262 as being “pressed down”, but no “push down tab” is referenced. Additionally, the specification does not support the claim language, as the lever 268 is on ejector 260 instead of arm 262.’
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because as shown in Figure 3, reference characters 56 and 58 have been used to designate both LC and SC type retaining features (56) and grooves (58). These features do not appear to be the analogous/the same between both embodiments and are not located in an identifiably similar location with invariant identifying features.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail properly depict retaining feature (222, 232, 56) as described in the specification. In Figure 3 (retaining feature 56), the retaining feature has two embodiments and it is not clear what reference character 56 points to as being a defining characteristic for both retaining features: LC and SC type connectors are understood in the art and while a different geometry is apparent, the retaining feature and what defines it is unclear.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p) because they do not maintain consistency of the reference numbers between the specification and drawings. Paragraphs [0058-0060] describe Figures 22-24 as having a connector holder 310, ferrule assembly 320, a support pad 340 and a rear support rib 342. Figures 22-24 have elements 10, 40 and 42. Applicant must amend Figures 22-24 or the description so they are consistent with element numbers.
Additionally, the reference number 10 is used for both the connector assembly in Figure 1 and the connector holder in Figure 23. Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 is/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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "…provide support to a first portion of the ferrule holder…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “…rotatably connected to the connector holder base”. Claim 1 only recites a “connector holder” having a “connector base”, but does not explicitly state that is a “connector holder base”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “…is loaded onto the fusion splice holder…” but claims 1-3 do not establish a “fusion splice holder” anywhere. A “fusion splice connector” and a “connector holder” are established, but not a “fusion splice holder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites “the connector includes a dust cap wherein the dust cap includes a feature that is sized to work with a holding feature on the connector holder.”
“the connector” is ambiguous; is this referring to the previously established “fusion splice connector”?
“work with” is indefinite. How does the connector work with the holding feature? What does ‘work with’ mean?
“holding feature” is not clearly defined. Any feature that structurally is capable of providing a holding function meets the claim. A divet, post, etc.
Regarding claim 6:
“Push down tab” is indefinite. While the specification defines “pressed down” components, such as the ejector lever 268 (paragraphs 23, 53, 55), it’s not clear that this is a “push down tab”. The lever 268 is additionally on ejector 260, NOT arm 262 as the claim indicates (claim 6 states “…the ejector arm includes a push down tab that releases the connector…”).
Regarding claims 2 and 7:
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected for being dependent upon a base claim which is itself indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma (US 7934874 B2) in view of Marmo (US 11640032 B1).
Regarding claim 1:
Honma teaches a system for connecting a fusion splice connector to an optical fiber (Title, holder 151 is fitted to holder fitting portion 173 of fusion processing portion 174 of fusion splicing apparatus 171 for fiber 5 to coated fiber 3; Figures 20-23) comprising:
a fiber optic fiber (coated optical fiber 3);
a fusion splice connector wherein a cable-to-cable splice is fully enclosed within a connector housing (connector 1, protection sleeve 15 covers fusion spliced portion 13 between short optical fiber 5 and coated optical fiber 3, and disposed in housing 18, whose top end couples integrally to plug frame 9 via engaging hole 18b);
and a connector holder (ferrule containing portion 153 and related components, see below)
Honma does not teach the connector holder with rear support rib as claimed, explicitly. Honma teaches a ferrule containing portion 153, whose axial length is set almost equal to the length from the front end of diameter-enlarged portion 7b to rear end of dust cap 22, so the capped ferrule is housed without play in the axial direction and projection length L2 of stub 5 is fixed at about 10 mm (Figures 21, 22).
Marmo teaches a fusion splice connector (title, abstract), wherein the device further includes:
a connector holder (Figures 2A-2C, holder 100b), the connector holder having a connector base (block of material 102b) with a front support pad configured to provide support to a first portion of the ferrule holder (substantially semicylindrical ridge 116b, expressly termed a shoulder or “land” by those of ordinary skill, located adjacent to first end portion 130b and dimensioned and configured to receive a plurality of different connector body styles, see Figures 2B and 2C specifically) and
a rear support rib (semicylindrical ridge 118b axially spaced rearward of ridge 116b, between recesses 108b and 110b, see Figures 2B and 2C) is configured to provide support to the ferrule holder at a point distal from the first portion.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Honma under the teachings of Marmo to substitute the connector holder of Marmo for the holder of Honma in Honma’s system. Marmo expressly identifies the unsolved problem in this field as how to securely hold an optic fiber cable connector in the holder, and answers it with the axially spaced semicylindrical ridges 116b/118b and integral stop 140b formed within cutout 104b. Honma’s holder faces the identical retention requirement, as it must fix the relative position of the ferrule assembly so that projection length L2 of stub 5 is maintained relative to electrodes 83. This is the simple substitution of a known holder for another to obtain predictable results (secure retention), and Marmo supplies an express reason to prefer its holder: it is disclosed as working with substantially all commercially available fusion splicers.
Regarding claim 7:
Honma in view of Marmo discloses the system of claim 1.
Honma does not expressly teach LC and SC type connections, though they are ubiquitous in the art.
Marmo teaches that the connector holder works with LC and SC fusion splice connectors (i.e. “As a result, there are five types of optic fiber connectors: FC (single fiber); LC (single fiber); SC (single fiber); ST (single fiber), and MPO/MTP (12 or more fibers)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the system of claim 1 above under the teachings of Marmo to ensure that the device is designed and configurable for LC and SC type connections. This may be accomplished using routine design oversight and machining methods and components known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which works with commercially available connection and fiber types, making it immediate applicable to the industry.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma (US 7934874 B2) in view of Marmo (US 11640032 B1), and further in view of Tamaki (US 6190054 B1).
Regarding claim 2:
Honma in view of Marmo teaches system of claim 1, wherein
Honma does not teach the connector holder includes an ejector arm.
Tamaki teaches an optical fiber connection device (10) having a supporting mechanism (11) with support platform (12) that supports optical fiber connector (1) in a fixed position, and an ejector mechanism 60 for releasing the connector from that support.
Tamaki further teaches an ejector arm (ejector level 80 having acting part 83 inserted below supporting platform 12, which passes through a slit formed in platform 12 and protrude above it to eject connector 1, Figure 11, and also Figures 15-17 with ejector arms 93 raised through a slit from the lower position of supporting platform 12) included on the connector holder.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Tamaki to include an ejector arm on the connector holder. This may be accomplished using methods and materials known in the art and would predictably result in a device where the operability of the ejection work is improved significantly, while reducing volumetric footprint and simplifying the structure of the device.
Regarding claim 3:
Honma in view of Marmo, and further in view of Tamaki teaches the system of claim 2.
Honma is silent on the ejector arm.
Tamaki teaches the connector holder and ejector arm (ejector arms 93 as used in the invention of claim 2) wherein the ejector arm is rotatably connected to the connector holder base (ejector lever 80 rotates around pivot axle 82 when operation rod 81 is pushed down, and acting part 83 of that same lever passes through supporting platform 12, Figure 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 2 above under the teachings of Tamaki to include an ejector arm rotatably connected to the connector holder. This may be accomplished using methods, materials, components and design oversight known to a skilled artisan, and predictably reduces the volumetric footprint of the device during operation as the ejection leverage occurs using radial motion rather than linear, meaning the operating cross sectional area of the device is reduced with simple construction.
Regarding claim 4:
Honma in view of Marmo, and further in view of Tamaki teaches the system of claim 3.
The recitation, “wherein as connector is loaded onto the fusion splice holder, a loading motion pushes the ejector arm down providing support to the connector,” recites a manner of using the apparatus rather than a structure, and is accorded limited patentable weight. MPEP 2114(II).
Tamaki additionally teaches the structure to which the recited manner of use is directed (acting part 83 of ejector lever 80 occupies a lowered position beneath support platform 12 while optical fiber connector 1 is supported thereon, and is raised through the slit in platform 12 upon actuation of rod 81, Figure 11).
The rationale to combine set forth for claims 2 and 3 applies to the structure of Tamaki.
Regarding claim 5:
Honma in view of Marmo, and further in view of Tamaki teaches the system of claim 4 wherein:
Honma further teaches that the connector includes a dust cap (dust cap 22 fitted to the top end side of plug frame 9 to cover top end shaft portion 7a of optical connector ferrule 7 projecting from the plug frame, in order to prevent dust from adhering to the fiber end surface, Figure 11) wherein the dust cap includes a feature that is sized to work with a holding feature on the connector holder (the rear end of dust cap 22 is a feature sizes against ferrule containing portion 153 of holder main body 154, whose axial length is set almost equal to the length from the front end of diameter enlarged portion 7b to that rear end, fixing the projection length as shown in Figures 21 and 22).
Regarding claim 6:
Honma in view of Marmo, and further in view of Tamaki teaches the system of claim 5 wherein:
Honma does not teach the push down tab as claimed.
Tamaki teaches that the ejector arm includes a push down tab that releases the connector with a downward push (ejector lever 80 include operation rod 81, which is a push down tab protruding from optical fiber connection device 10. Pushing the rod 81 downward revolves lever 80 around pivot axle 82, raising acting part 83 through the slit in supporting platform 12 to eject optical fiber connector 1, see Figures 11-14).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 5 above under the teachings of Tamaki to include a push down tab on the ejector arm to facilitate a release mechanism for the connector. This may be accomplished using methods, components, and routine design oversight known to a skilled artisan, and would predictably result in a device which is easy to operate and enables the quick release of connected fibers and holders through accessible push down tabs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, THOMAS A 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights