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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement filed 11/05/2024 has been considered.
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 28, 32-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,768 B2 (hereinafter “the ‘768 patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the present application are obvious variations of the patent claims of the ‘768 patent. Specifically, regarding claim 28, the ‘768 patent claims a boot for a fiber optic connector comprising a first body and a first axial passage extending through the first body from a first material (col. 8, ll. 36-46); and a second body to the first body from a second material different from the first material, the second body including a second axial passage extending through the second body (col. 8, ll. 36-40. ll. 47-51), wherein the second axial passage is molded in coaxial alignment with the first axial passage (col. 8, ll. 35-54); wherein the first body includes a first end defining a first end of the boot and a second end opposite the first end (col. 8, ll. 35-37); wherein the second body includes a first end over-molded over the second end of the first body and a second end defining a second end of the boot (col. 8, ll. 47-50); and wherein the second end of the first body and the first end of the second body connect to each other along an overlap length that extends along a minority of a length of the first body (col. 8, ll. 52-54).
While the ‘768 patent does not explicitly claim a method of constructing a boot, comprising the steps of injection molding a first body and injection molding a second body, the ‘768 patent claims that the first body and the second body are “molded body”. Also, a method step of injection molding in producing a “molded body” is well known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the step of injection molding a molded body as advantageous and desirable since injection molding offers high production efficiency, low per-part cost, precise repeatability, and versatility in materials and complex design. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claims of the ‘768 patent to claim a method of constructing a boot, comprising the steps of injection molding a first body and injection molding a second body, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 32-33, the ‘768 patent claims wherein the second body more flexible than the first body- i.e. the second material is softer than the first material (col. 8, ll. 51).
Regarding claim 34, the ‘768 patent renders obvious a method of constructing a boot as discussed above regarding claim 28. However, it does not explicitly claim wherein the first axial passage and the second axial passage are configured to slidably receive a fiber optic cable, as claimed. On the other hand, having an axial passage of a fiber optic connector strain relief boot configured to slidably receive a fiber optic cable is well known and common in the art. Such features are known to be advantageous and desirable since a slidable cable allows for optical fiber cable to bend without kinking the optical fiber core within the cable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claims of the ‘768 patent to claim the first axial passage and the second axial passage that are configured to slidably receive a fiber optic cable, as claimed in the present application.
Claims 38-39, 41, 44, 46-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,768 B2 (hereinafter “the ‘768 patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the present application are obvious variations of the patent claims of the ‘768 patent. Specifically, regarding claim 38, the ‘768 patent claims, a fiber optic connector (column 8, line 27) comprising: a connector housing including a front end and a rear end (col. 8, ll. 29-30) a ferrule configured to support one or more optical fibers (col. 8, ll. 33) the ferrule being positioned adjacent the front end of the connector housing (col. 8, ll. 33-34); and a boot including a first boot end and an opposite second boot end (col. 8, ll. 35), the boot having an axial boot length that extends from the first boot end to the second boot end (col. 8, ll. 37-39), the boot including a first molded body defining the first boot end and a second molded body defining the second boot end (col. 8, ll. 41-50). , the first molded body being secured to the rear end of the connector housing (col. 8, ll. 35-36) and the second molded body extending rearwardly from the first molded body (col. 8, ll. 47-49), the second molded body being molded over the first molded body along an overlap length that extends along a minority of an axial length of the first body (col. 8, ll. 51-54), wherein at least a portion of the second molded body is more flexible than the first molded body (col. 8, ll. 51- i.e. softer material is necessarily more flexible).
Regarding claim 39, the ‘768 patent claims wherein at least one of the first and second molded bodies includes circumferential grooves (col. 8, ll. 55-59- co-axial rings separated by axial gaps are effectively circumferential grooves).
Regarding claim 41, the ‘768 patent claims a fiber optic connector as discussed above regarding claim 38. However, it does not explicitly claim that the overlap length extends along a minority of an axial length of the second molded body. On the other hand, having the overlap length extending a minority length of the second molded body would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such feature would ensure sufficient bending capabilities of the fiber optic connector boot and effectively control the amount strain relief in the boot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claims of the ‘768 patent to recite he overlap length to extend along a minority of an axial length of the second molded body, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 44, the ‘768 patent claims a fiber optic connector (col. 8, ll. 27) comprising: a connector housing including a front end and a rear end (col. 8, ll. 28-29); a ferrule configured to support one or more optical fibers (col. 8, ll. 33), the ferrule being positioned adjacent the front end of the connector housing (col. 8, ll. 33-34); and a boot including a first boot end and an opposite second boot end, the boot having an axial boot length that extends from the first boot end to the second boot end (col. 8, ll. 35-39), the boot including a first molded body defining the first boot end and a second molded body defining the second boot end (col. 8, ll. 41-50), the first molded body being secured to the rear end of the connector housing (col. 8, ll. 35-36, ll. 41-42) and the second molded body extending rearwardly from the first molded body (col. 8, ll. 47-50), the second molded body being molded over the first molded body along an overlap length that extends along a minority of an axial length of at least one of the first and second bodies (col. 8, ll. 52-54), wherein at least a portion of the second molded body is more flexible than the first molded body (col. 8, ll. 51), and wherein throughout an entirety of the overlap length no portion of the first molded body is exposed at an exterior of the boot (col 8, ll. 52-54: since the second molded body overlaps the first molded body along an overlap length, no portion of the first molded by is exposed along this overlap length).
Regarding claim 46, the ‘768 patent claims a fiber optic connector as discussed above regarding claim 44. However, it does not explicitly claim that the overlap length extends along a minority of an axial length of the second molded body. On the other hand, having the overlap length extending a minority length of the second molded body would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such feature would ensure sufficient bending capabilities of the fiber optic connector boot and effectively control the amount strain relief in the boot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claims of the ‘768 patent to recite he overlap length to extend along a minority of an axial length of the second molded body, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 47, the ‘768 patent claims wherein the overlap length extends along a minority of an axial length of the first molded body (col. 8, ll. 52-54).
Claims 35-36, 40, 42-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,768 B2, as applied to claims above, and in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,672,774 B2 to Theuerkorn et al. (hereinafter “Theuerkorn”).
Regarding claim 35-36, the ‘768 patent renders obvious a method of constructing a boot as discussed above regarding claim 28. However, it does not explicitly claim wherein the first end of the first body includes a snapon retention feature as claimed in claims 35-36 of the present application. On the other hand, such a feature is known in the art. For example, Theuerkorn discloses a fiber optic connector comprising a strain relief boot (26 in Fig. 1), where in the front first end of the boot fits over the rear end of the connector housing (col. 5, ll. 17-25); wherein the first end of the boot includes a snapon retention feature (56, 58 in Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 32-40). Such features would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable by one of ordinary skill in the art since they would allow for secure mechanical coupling between the fiber optic connector and the boot and ensure maximum protection of fragile optical fibers within the fiber optic connector device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the patent claims of the ‘768 patent to claim the first end of the boot fitting over the rear end of the connector housing, and wherein the first end of the boot includes a snapon retention feature as claimed in the present application.
As discussed above in reference to claim 38, the ‘768 patent claims a fiber optic connector with claim recitations that are obvious variations of the claimed fiber optic connector of the instant application. However, the ‘768 patent does not explicitly claim wherein the first end of the boot fits over the rear end of the connector housing as claimed in claim 40, and wherein the first end of the boot includes a snapon retention feature as claimed in claim 42-43 of the present application. On the other hand, such a feature is known in the art. For example, Theuerkorn discloses a fiber optic connector comprising a strain relief boot (26 in Fig. 1), where in the front first end of the boot fits over the rear end of the connector housing (col. 5, ll. 17-25); wherein the first end of the boot includes a snapon retention feature (56, 58 in Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 32-40). Such features would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable by one of ordinary skill in the art since they would allow for secure mechanical coupling between the fiber optic connector and the boot and ensure maximum protection of fragile optical fibers within the fiber optic connector device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the patent claims of the ‘768 patent to claim the first end of the boot fitting over the rear end of the connector housing, and wherein the first end of the boot includes a snapon retention feature as claimed in the present application.
Claim 37, 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,768 B2, as applied to claims above, and in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,795,229 to Abendschein et al. (hereinafter “Abendschein”).
As discussed above in reference to claim 35, the ‘768 patent in view of Theuerkorn renders obvious the claimed recitation of method of constructing a boot. However, the ‘768 patent does not explicitly claim wherein the first boot end includes a threaded portion for securing the boot in the manner claimed in claim 37 of the present application. On the other hand, such feature is known in the art. Specifically, Abendschein discloses a strain relief boot for an optical fiber connector wherein the first end of the strain relief boot includes a threaded retention (41, 53 in Fig. 2) for securing the boot to the rear end of the connector housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such features as advantageous and desirable since it would allow for repeatedly disengageable strain relief boot capable of internal optical fiber access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claims of the ‘768 patent to claim the first boot end including a threaded portion for securing the boot in the manner claimed in the present application.
As discussed above in reference to claim 44, the ‘768 patent claims a fiber optic connector with claim recitations that are obvious variations of the claimed fiber optic connector of the instant application. However, the ‘768 patent does not explicitly claim wherein the first boot end includes a threaded portion for securing the boot in the manner claimed in claim 45 of the present application. On the other hand, such feature is known in the art. Specifically, Abendschein discloses a strain relief boot for an optical fiber connector wherein the first end of the strain relief boot includes a threaded retention (41, 53 in Fig. 2) for securing the boot to the rear end of the connector housing. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such features as advantageous and desirable since it would allow for repeatedly disengageable strain relief boot capable of internal optical fiber access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claims of the ‘768 patent to claim the first boot end including a threaded portion for securing the boot in the manner claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 5PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/SUNG H PAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights