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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
Four sheets for formal drawings were filed June 26, 2024 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1, “edge of handle” should be changed to “edge of the handle” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (TW I578054 B) in view of Ko (US 2008/0031631 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a bale-clasp cover mechanism (Figs. 1-6) for a pluggable optical transceiver (1) comprising:
- a bale-clasp handle (3) adapted to rotate around a proximal inferior edge of the optical transceiver (Fig. 5);
- a surface cover (4);
wherein, said cover is further adapted to rotate around a superior edge of the handle (Fig. 4).
Still regarding claim 1, Li teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a SC type transceiver. However, various form factors of transceivers are well-known and commonly used in the art and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use any type of transceiver, including an SC type, for the purpose of using the cover mechanism in a wider range of devices.
Still regarding claim 1, Li teaches the claimed invention except for a spring. Ko discloses a cover mechanism comprising a surface cover (102 in Fig. 5) and a spring (105) configured to tension the cover at a 90 degrees angle against an opposite edge of the handle to protect a socket of the optical transceiver (paragraph 0026). Since both of the inventions relate to optical transceivers, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a spring as disclosed by Ko in the device of Li for the purpose of providing an automatic dustproof function.
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the handle further comprises an U-shaped assembly arm (30, 32) operatively mounted in the handle configured to synergistically rotate downwards activating release arm to release the optical transceiver (Fig. 5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (TW I578054 B) in view of Ko (US 2008/0031631 A1), further in view of Bianchini (US 6,872,010).
Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination of Li and Ko teaches the claimed invention except for the handle comprising a protrusion. Bianchini discloses an optical transceiver (10 in Figs. 1-2), having a handle (16) comprising a protrusion (top of 16 includes a protrusion on each side of shaped finger plate 163) in its top surface, whose longest axis is aligned with a connection direction. Since all of the inventions relate to optical transceivers, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a handle comprising a protrusion as disclosed by Bianchini in the device of the proposed combination of Li and Ko for the purpose of providing means for a user to easily grasp the handle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights