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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:.
Claim 19 reads “wherein of the at lest one securing feature”. The word “of” appears out of place.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 requires the limitation “the first piece comprises a finger protruding from a first side” which is already contained in parent claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oehlert, et al., US 2015/0087420 A1 in view of Rosson, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0049922 A1.
With regard to claims 1 and 9, Ohlert discloses, in figs. 4 and 5, a push-button actuator the push-button actuator (300) comprising: a first piece (302a) having a first diameter and a second diameter with the first diameter being larger than the second diameter (Ohlert button is not circular, but has perimeters of different sizes); a second piece (302b) configured as an annular ring that cooperates with the first piece (Ohlert button is not circular, but first piece 302a cooperates with second piece 302b); wherein the second piece is welded to the first piece ; and a seal (304) sized for fitting about the second diameter of the first piece [0026-0034].
Ohlert does not disclose that the button is circular, that it is used for releasing an external fiber optic connector from a connection port, or that the first part has a finger protruding from a first side;
Rosson, in figs. 19 and 20, disclose a circular button (310a) that is used for releasing an existing fiber optic connector from a connection port, and has a finger (310F) for pressing on an actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention go use the Ohlert two part button design for the connection port button of Rosson because the Ohlert two part design allows the two parts to trap the seal portion thereby making it a more reliable, robust design. The protruding finger, taught by Rosson, is necessary to actuate the device below the button. Further the choice of circular or other shape for the button is a matter of design choice. Also, the statement in the preamble of the claim “used for releasing an external fiber optic connector from a connection port” can be interpreted in claims 1 and 9 as a non-limiting intended use.
With regard to claims 2 and 10, the Ohlert/Rosson button described in the rejection above further discloses a portion of the second piece (302b) fits about part of the first piece (302a) for defining a location between the first piece (302a) and the second piece (302b) for capturing the seal (304) [0031-0032].
With regard to claims 3 and 11, the Ohlert/Rosson button described in the rejection above further discloses the second piece (302b) comprises a transmissive material that allow predetermined wavelengths to pass through the transmissive material for allowing welding of the second piece to the first piece [0026-0034].
With regard to claims 4 and 12, the Ohlert/Rosson button described in the rejection above further discloses the first piece (302a) comprises a finger protruding from a first side [0026-0034].
With regard to claims 5 and 13, the Ohlert/Rosson button described in the rejection above includes securing features 334 shown in Ohlert fig. 5. One skilled in the art could determine the best placement and configuration for securing features depending on the shape of the first and second pieces of the button and intended use of the button.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the combined Ohlert and Rosson two part button that the finger comprises at least one groove configured for securing the second piece to the first piece to better secure the two pieces resulting in a robust, durable button designed for an intended purpose.
With regard to claims 6 and 14, the Ohlert/Rosson button described in the rejection above however neither expressly disclose the materials used for the components other than a statement in Ohlert that “The elements and assemblies may be constructed from any of a wide variety of materials that provide sufficient strength or durability”. One skilled in the art would know that polycarbonate material would satisfy these requirements, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first piece comprises a polycarbonate material, because it provides sufficient strength and durability.
With regard to claims 7 and 15, the Ohlert/Rosson button described in the rejection above further discloses that the push-button actuator (310A) is a portion of a fiber optic terminal (200) comprising at least one connection port (236) for receiving an external fiber optic connector (as taught by Rosson).
With regard to claims 8 and 16, the Ohlert/Rosson button described in the rejection above further discloses that the push-button actuator (310A) is configured for engaging a securing member (310SA) of the fiber optic terminal (200) associated with the at least one connection port (236) for translating the securing member (310SA) to an open position for releasing the external fiber optic connector from the connection port of the fiber optic terminal (as taught by Rosson).
With regard to claim 17, Rosson teaches a fiber optic terminal for making an optical connection with one or more external fiber optic connectors, the fiber optic terminal comprising: a shell (210); at least one connection port (236) disposed on the fiber optic terminal (200) with the at least one connection port (236) comprising an optical connector opening extending from an outer surface of the fiber optic terminal into a cavity of the fiber optic terminal and defining a connection port passageway; at least one securing feature (310SA) being associated with the connection port passageway; at least one securing feature resilient member (230RM) for biasing a portion of the at least one securing feature (310SA); and a push-button actuator (310A) that cooperates with the at least one securing feature (310SA).
The two piece button design is not taught by Rosson, but would be an obvious combination of Rosson and Ohlert as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 18, Rosson discloses that the at least one securing feature (310SA/310M) is capable of translating.
With regard to claim 19, Rosson discloses the at least one securing feature (310SA/310M) is biased to a retain position by the at least one securing feature resilient member (230RM).
With regard to claim 20, Rosson discloses a portion of the at least one securing feature (310SA/310M) is part of the modular adapter sub-assembly.
With regard to claim 21, Rosson discloses the at least one securing feature (310SA/310M) comprises a bore that is aligned with the at least one connection port passageway.
With regard to claim 22, Rosson discloses the at least one securing feature (310SA/310M) comprises further comprises a locking feature (310L).
With regard to claim 23, Rosson discloses the locking feature (310L) comprises a retention surface.
With regard to claim 24, Rosson discloses the locking feature (310L) comprises a ramp with a ledge.
With regard to claim 25, Rosson discloses the at least one connection port (236) is a portion of the shell (210).
With regard to claim 26, Rosson discloses the shell (210) comprises at least a first portion and a second portion.
With regard to claim 27, Rosson further comprising an optical splitter (275) disposed within a cavity of the shell (210).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Matthew W Such can be reached at (571)272-1570. 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.
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights