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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/681,975 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘975 application claims differ only in adding an associated adapter in which the connector would be mated to and in the dependent claims 2-3, a groove/projection securing feature. The inventive structure in the current case and the copending application relate to the misalignment adjustment structure in the connector. Remaining claims are structural obvious variations of the internal flanges and projections which are disclosed in both applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0004254 to Yoshino et al. in view of US 2025/0130374 to Kirkpatrick et al. and further in view of US 2003/0215191 to Inagaki et al.
Yoshino discloses in the abstract and figures 1-6, an optical connector (10) comprising:
a glass fiber (2),
a front end portion (towards 60 in figure 3);
a rear end portion (end towards 2 in figure 3) located on a side opposite to the front end portion (figure 3); and
a ferrule assembly (60) having a ferrule fixed to a tip end portion (40) and a holding portion (30; figure 7) to which a rear end portion of the ferrule is fixed and which is provided with a flange (53);
a housing having an inner wall surface that defines an internal space in which at least the holding portion of the ferrule assembly is accommodated, a flat surface that constitutes a part of the inner wall surface and is provided at a position facing a part of an outer peripheral surface of the flange, and a positioning portion that limits movement of the holding portion in the internal space (figures 7-12 show how the holding portion secures the ferrule in the housing); and
an elastic member (80) that biases the flange toward the positioning portion,
wherein the reference surface includes two contact parts with the flange contacting them to prevent rotational movement (figures 7-12 show there is some allowance for rotation before fixing).
As to claim 4, the claim recites a general “floating” terminology defined as the position changes as the ferrule is pushed through. Figure 8 shows some degree of movement and the spring allows for movement in the longitudinal direction.
As to claim 5, the outer shape of the flange is quadrangular (53; figure 6).
As to claim 6, an outer portion is curved (RD; figure 10).
However, Yoshino fails to explicitly disclose a resin coated fiber where a portion of the “end” is removed. It is noted that independent claims 9-10 disclose this removal to secure an end in the ferrule.
Kirkpatrick discloses a well known resin coated fiber which is common in the art (abstract and paragraph 100-101 and 121 describes the resin removal to allow for strength and proper mounting). Such fibers are also known as plastic optical fibers and are used for their bendability and resistance to damage. With regard to claim 5, fiber bundles are disclosed by Kirkpatrick.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that multiple types of fibers and fiber bundles may be used within a ferrule. Kirkpatrick teaches such bundles with resin portions removed for proper mounting within a ferrule.
Yoshino in view of Kirkpatrick fails to disclose the recessed reference surface (claim 2) and corresponding projection (claim 3). It is noted that such alignment structures are common in the art.
Inagaki discloses such a well known recessed surface with projections (figure 4A).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add recessed portions with corresponding projections to lock a flange in place to prevent misalignment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0215191.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874