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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 2-4, 6-10, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2010/105959 A3 (“ROSSETTO”).
Regarding claim 2, ROSSETTO teaches a tool (1) for installing a protective barrier (57) across an optical splice (15) to form a splice arrangement, the optical splice being between at least a first optical fiber (33) and a second optical fiber (52), the first optical fiber being held by a first mechanical holder (30) and the second optical fiber being held by a second mechanical holder (40), the tool comprising: a first part defining a first holder mounting location configured to receive the first mechanical holder and a second holder mounting location configured to receive the second mechanical holder to position the optical splice at a known location
(FIGs. 3, 4); and a second part movable relative to the first part between a first position and a second position (pg. 2, line 12 – pg. 3, line 9; pg. 3, line 20 – pg. 4, line 20; pg. 5, lines 9-15;
pg. 5, line 30 – pg. 6, line 12; pg. 6, lines 28-29; pg. 9, line 27 – pg. 11, line 5), wherein the tool applies a protective layer (59, 60) to the optical splice when the second part is moved to the second position.
Regarding claim 3, ROSSETTO teaches that the second part defines a film mounting location at which the protective layer can be held, the second part aligning the protective layer held at the film mounting location with the optical splice when the second part is disposed in the second position (FIGs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 4, ROSSETTO teaches that the second part pivots between the first position and the second position (pg. 1, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 6, ROSSETTO teaches that the second part is freely movable between the first position and the second position (pg. 2, line 12 – pg. 3, line 9).
Regarding claim 7, ROSSETTO teaches that at least one of the first holder mounting location or the second holder mounting location is configured to bias the first mechanical holder or the second mechanical holder received thereat away from the other of the first holder mounting location or the second holder mounting location to apply tension to the optical splice (pg. 10, line 23 – pg. 11, line 5).
Regarding claim 8, ROSSETTO teaches a biasing member configured to apply tension to the optical splice (pg. 10, line 23 – pg. 11, line 5).
Regarding claim 9, ROSSETTO teaches that the biasing member is disposed at one of the first holder mounting location or the second holder mounting location (FIGs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 10, ROSSETTO teaches that the tool is configured to activate an adhesive layer (59) of the protective layer.
Regarding claim 14, ROSSETTO teaches a method for installing a protective barrier (57) across an optical splice (15) between at least a first optical fiber (33) and a second optical fiber (52), comprising: holding the first optical fiber with a first mechanical holder (30) and the second optical fiber with a second mechanical holder (40); receiving the first mechanical holder in a first holder mounting location of a tool and the second mechanical holder in a second holder mounting location of the tool to position the optical splice at a known location (FIGs. 3, 4); moving a second part of the tool relative to a first part of the tool from a first position to a second position (pg. 2, line 12 – pg. 3, line 9; pg. 3, line 20 – pg. 4, line 20; pg. 5, lines 9-15;
pg. 5, line 30 – pg. 6, line 12; pg. 6, lines 28-29; pg. 9, line 27 – pg. 11, line 5); and applying a protective layer (59, 60) to the optical splice when the second part is moved to the second position.
Regarding claim 15, ROSSETTO teaches that holding the protective layer in a film mounting location defined by the second part, and aligning the protective layer with the optical splice when the second part is disposed in the second position (FIGs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 16, ROSSETTO teaches that the second part pivots between the first position and the second position (pg. 1, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 18, ROSSETTO teaches that the second part is freely movable between the first position and the second position (pg. 2, line 12 – pg. 3, line 9).
Regarding claim 19, ROSSETTO teaches biasing the first holder mounting location away from the second holder mounting location to apply tension to the optical splice (pg. 10, line 23 – pg. 11, line 5).
Regarding claim 20, ROSSETTO teaches activating an adhesive layer (59) of the protective barrier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSSETTO.
ROSETTO teaches the limitations of the respective base claims. While ROSSETTO does not explicitly teach that the second part slides between the first position and the second position, ROSETTO does teach the mutually exclusive but obvious variant of the second part pivoting between the first position and the second position (pg. 1, lines 20-25). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the pivoting of the second part, taught by ROSETTO, with the mutually exclusive, but obvious variant of sliding of the second part, as set forth in the instant claims. If Applicant wishes to argue as to the non-obviousness of these variants, Examiner may reconsider a potential election of species requirement.
Claims 11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSSETTO in view of US 2013/0251319 (“COMPTON”).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, ROSETTO teaches the limitations of the respective base claims. ROSETTO does not teach an emitter to emit UV light at the adhesive layer. COMPTON teaches an emitter to emit UV light at an adhesive layer (par. [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the tool and method of ROSSETTO to include the emitter of COMPTON to emit UV light at the adhesive layer. The motivation would have been to provide increased reliability for the performance of the splice protector.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, ROSSETTO teaches the limitations of the base claim 10. While ROSSETTO does not explicitly teach a heater to heat the adhesive layer or a pressure application arrangement to apply pressure to the adhesive layer, ROSSETTO in view of COMPTON does render obvious the mutually exclusive but obvious variant of an emitter to emit UV light at the adhesive layer, as set forth in claim 13. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the emitting of UV light at the adhesive layer, rendered obvious by ROSETTO in view of COMPTON, with the mutually exclusive, but obvious variants of heating and/or applying pressure to the adhesive layer, as set forth in the instant claims. If Applicant wishes to argue as to the non-obviousness of these variants, Examiner may reconsider a potential election of species requirement.
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