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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 22 line 30 labels “the locking unit” 30a, while the next line labels “the actuation unit” 30a.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: The limitation “wherein the operating element is mounted rotatably around the axial direction” is unclear because it does not define what the operating element is mounted to. The operation element is previously mentioned in the limitation “a locking unit for locking the actuation unit, having an operating element for actuating the locking unit”. The claim therefore does not positively require that the operating element be mounted to any other component of the device, nor does the claim connect rotation of the operation element to the actuation of the locking unit. Could the locking unit be remotely controlled, with the operating element being a button on the remote? For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that any element involved with the locking unit mounted anywhere can be considered an operation element.
Regarding claim 1: Furthermore, the “axial direction” is also unclear. The axial direction is included in the limitations “for actuating a latching unit by pulling along an axial direction” and “wherein the operating element is mounted rotatably around the axial direction”. As discussed above, the claim is unclear as to where the operating element is mounted, so if it does not have to be mounted to the latching unit and/or the actuation unit, it could be movable in any direction with respect to these elements. Is an “axial direction” whatever direction the latch is configured to be pulled? If so, the term is confusing because “axial direction” suggests a relationship to some fiber or tube or cylindrical object that is not defined in the claim. For the purpose of examination, any direction can be considered an axial direction.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 likewise recites an “axial direction” that is not defined with respect to an axis of the device structure. For the purpose of examination, any direction can be considered an axial direction.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 depends on claim 8, which does not require a wire. Therefore, in the limitation “the wire has a diameter of maximally 5 mm”, it is unclear what is required. Additionally, the phrasing “diameter of maximally 5 mm” is ambiguous as to whether it means it has a diameter less than or equal to 5 mm or has a diameter that varies across the length of the wire but somewhere on the wire it reaches a maximum diameter of exactly 5 mm. For the purpose of examination, this claim is interpreted as requiring the wire, wherein the wire has a diameter that is less than or equal to 5 mm.
Regarding claim 10: “wherein the reset element is implemented integrally with at least part of the locking unit, in particular integrally with the operating element” is a broader limitation followed by a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the recites the broad recitation “integrally with at least part of the locking unit”, and the claim also recites “in particular integrally with the operating element” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, “integrally with the operating element” is considered not required.
Regarding claim 15: “the latching unit comprising an at least partially ring-shaped spring element” is unclear. Does it mean that part of the spring element, which itself is part of the latching unit, has a subcomponent that is ring-shaped? Or does it mean that the spring element is “partially ring-shaped” as in somewhat ring-shaped? If so, it is unclear what that requires. How much of a ring shape is considered a “partial” ring shape? For the purpose of examination, any curved structure is considered to meet the claim requirement.
Regarding claims 18 and 19: Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: any and all steps required by the respective methods, since the claims are directed to methods but recite no steps.
Regarding claims 2-19: Dependent claims 2-19 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
Note: The following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
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)(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 1-4, 6, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fritz et al. (WO 2023/049165; hereinafter Fritz).
Regarding claim 1: Fritz disclosesA transmission connector device comprising: -an actuation unit (Fig. 6, latch actuator 348) for actuating a latching unit (Fig. 6, latch 250, corresponding to the latch 250 best represented in Fig. 4) by pulling along an axial direction and thereby transferring the latching unit from a latch position into a release position (see bayonet slots 106 in the shroud 241 best represented in Fig. 4, and paragraph 0038; the rotation of the shroud is confined by the bayonet slots, which have an axial component; pulling along the axial direction while rotating will contribute to the transferring of the latching unit from a latch position into a release position; alternatively, since the axial direction is not defined with respect to a particular axis of the connector, any direction can be considered an axial direction); and -a locking unit (Fig. 6, actuator walls 352 and 353; as applied to claims 3-4 and 10, the locking unit is considered to further comprise the corresponding grooves/slots 247 of the inner surface of the shroud 241) for locking the actuation unit, having an operating element (Fig. 6, actuator wall 353 is engaged in the operation of actuating the actuating unit, since it maintains the relative orientation of the shroud and the actuating unit as an operator moves the actuator between the locked and unlocked position; therefore it is considered to be an operating element; as applied to claims 3-4 and 10, grooves/slots 247 of the inner surface of the shroud 241) for actuating the locking unit, the transmission connector device further comprising – at least one reset element (Fig. 4-5, shroud 241) for transferring at least the actuation unit back from an unlocked position into a locked position (see paragraph 0034), wherein the operating element is mounted rotatably around the axial direction (the operating element 353 is fixed to the shroud, so as the shroud rotates, the lock rotates; see paragraph 0036; as applied to claims 3-4, the entire shroud 241 including the grooves/slots are rotatable; alternatively, the entire device of Figs. 4-6 is rotatable in all directions).
Regarding claim 2: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the locking unit prevents a relative movement of the actuation unit along the axial direction (Fig. 4 shows that the wall 352 fits into a slot 247 for the alignment collar, as disclosed in paragraph 0030, which prevents a relative movement of the actuation unit with respect to the shroud along the axial direction).
Regarding claim 3: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), comprising a cable boot unit (see Figs. 2 and 4, the shroud is considered to be a cable boot unit), which at least partially forms the operating element (the operating element, considered to be the grooves/slots 247, are formed on the outer surface of the shroud 241; therefore the cable boot unit at least partially forms the operating element).
Regarding claim 4: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 3 (as applied above), wherein the cable boot unit is fixed to the actuation unit with respect to at least one direction (Fig. 4 shows that the wall 352 fits into a slot 247 for the alignment collar, as disclosed in paragraph 0030, which is fixed to the actuation unit with respect to at least one direction).
Regarding claim 6: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein at least portions of the reset element are rotatable around the axial direction (see paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 10: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the reset element is implemented integrally with at least part of the locking unit, in particular integrally with the operating element (Fig. 4, the shroud 241 is integral with the groove/slot 247, the operating element).
Regarding claim 11: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the reset element comprises an arm-shaped element (as best shown in Figs. 2-3, the shroud 241, corresponding to 141 in Fig. 2, is an arm-shaped element).
Regarding claim 12: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein an overall length of the actuation unit is less than 60 mm in the axial direction (as noted above, any direction can be considered an axial direction; see paragraph 0038, the entire connector assembly is disclosed to have a diameter less than 60 mm; therefore along radial directions of the connector the actuation unit necessarily has a length less than 60 mm, and in the transverse direction, the length is shown to be shorter, see Figs. 4-5 and 7).
Regarding claim 13: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising a cable receptacle unit (Fig. 3, receiving area 245) configured for receiving an oval-shaped cable (this is considered to be an intended use, see note below).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The cable receptacle unit of the Fritz device is a recess which fits a cable and a seal 246, it is therefore considered to be configured to receive a cable with any cross-sectional shape including an oval-shape, as long as it is small enough to fit in the receiving area.
Regarding claim 14: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising a cable receptacle unit (Fig. 3, receiving area 245)configured for receiving a cable with a diameter of less than 10 mm and/or more than 2 mm (this is considered to be an intended use, see note below).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The cable receptacle unit of the Fritz device is a recess which fits a cable and a seal 246, it is therefore considered to be configured to receive a cable with any diameter, as long as it is small enough to fit in the receiving area, including one with a diameter less than 10 mm.
Regarding claim 15: Fritz disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising the latching unit comprising an at least partially ring-shaped spring element (as best shown in Figs. 4-5, the latching unit 250 comprises a curved portion near the front end; this curved portion is considered to be an at least partially ring-shaped spring element).
Regarding claim 16: Fritz disclosesA transmission connector comprising a transmission connector device according to claim 1 (the Fritz transmission connector device, as applied above, is a transmission connector).
Regarding claim 17: Fritz disclosesA system comprising a transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above) and a cooperating unit (Figs. 4-6, alignment collar 248) for connecting with the transmission connector device (it connects with the transmission connector device via the shroud 241), wherein the cooperating unit has at least one recess (Figs. 4-6, receiving area 345) for receiving at least a portion of the latching unit (the receiving area is for receiving at least a portion of the latching unit).
Regarding claim 18: Fritz disclosesA method for assembling a transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above; additionally, see paragraph 0063, “attaching a latch cam to a shroud”).
Regarding claim 19: Fritz disclosesA method for operating a transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above; additionally, see paragraphs 0062-0066).
Regarding claim 20: Fritz disclosesA transmission connector device comprising: -an actuation unit (Fig. 6, latch actuator 348) for actuating a latching unit (Fig. 6, latch 250, corresponding to the latch 250 best represented in Fig. 4) by pulling along an axial direction and thereby transferring the latching unit from a latch position into a release position (see bayonet slots 106 in the shroud 241 best represented in Fig. 4, and paragraph 0038; the rotation of the shroud is confined by the bayonet slots, which have an axial component; pulling along the axial direction while rotating will contribute to the transferring of the latching unit from a latch position into a release position; alternatively, since the axial direction is not defined with respect to a particular axis of the connector, any direction can be considered an axial direction); and -a locking unit (Fig. 6, actuator walls 352 and 353) for locking the actuation unit, having an operating element (Fig. 6, actuator wall 353 is engaged in the operation of actuating the actuating unit, since it maintains the relative orientation of the shroud and the actuating unit as an operator moves the actuator between the locked and unlocked position; therefore it is considered to be an operating element) for actuating the locking unit,further comprising a cable receptacle (Fig. 3, receiving area 245) configured for receiving an oval-shaped cable (this is considered to be an intended use, see note below).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The cable receptacle unit of the Fritz device is a recess which fits a cable and a seal 246, it is therefore considered to be configured to receive a cable with any cross-sectional shape including an oval-shape, as long as it is small enough to fit in the receiving area.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cappannari et al. (US 2023/0258876; hereinafter Cappannari).
Regarding claim 1: Cappannari disclosesA transmission connector device comprising: -an actuation unit (Fig. 12, EPC) for actuating a latching unit (latching unit is the feature/protrusion of the EPC that latches with the feature 70L) by pulling along an axial direction and thereby transferring the latching unit from a latch position into a release position (Fig. 12 shows the EPC in a latch position, whereas Fig. 11 shows the EPC in the release position; the latching unit of the EPC is actuated from the latch position to the release position by pulling along an axial direction, i.e. to the right in Figs. 11-12); and -a locking unit (Fig. 7a, female connector 100, weatherproofing collar 80, and cap 82, shown in Figs. 11-12) for locking the actuation unit (when the spring is in its rest position, the latch 70L locks the EPC, i.e. the actuation unit), having an operating element (Fig. 7a, rocker latch arm 70) for actuating the locking unit, the transmission connector device further comprising – at least one reset element (Fig. 7b, torsional spring 75; see paragraphs 0076-0077) for transferring at least the actuation unit back from an unlocked position into a locked position (the torsional spring does this), wherein the operating element is mounted rotatably around the axial direction (see paragraph 0099, since the claim does not say what the operating element is mounted to or with respect to what element the operating element is rotatable, the operating element is interpreted as mounted rotatably to the cap around the axial direction; additionally, the device of Fig. 11-12 is rotatable in all directions).
Regarding claim 7: Cappannari disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the reset element comprises a torsion spring (see Fig. 7b, the torsional element is disclosed to be a torsion spring).
Regarding claim 8: Cappannari disclosesThe transmission connector device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the reset element is at least partially made of metal and/or of a wire (see Fig. 7b, the torsional spring is made of a wire).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Cappannari et al. (US 2023/0258876; hereinafter Cappannari).
Cappannari discloses the transmission connector device according to claim 8, as applied above. Cappannari therefore discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 9, but does not discloses that the wire has a diameter of maximally 5 mm. However, the diameter of the wire forming the torsion spring is a result effective variable, since a thicker wire would increase the resistance of the spring to deformation. In order to prevent the torsion spring from becoming too stiff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Cappannari device such that the wire has a diameter of maximally 5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (WO 2023/049165; hereinafter Fritz) in view of Moriyama et al. (US 2018/0252874; hereinafter Moriyama).
Regarding claim 5: Fritz discloses the transmission connector device according to claim 1, as applied above. Fritz fails to disclose that the reset element is an elastic element. However, Moriyama, also related to transmission connector devices (see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 0030-0033) teaches cable boots 71 and 72 formed of a thermoplastic elastomer, an elastic material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since it was a known to use elastic materials for cable boots, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Fritz device by using an elastic material for the cable boot to better accommodate bending of the cables. Since the cable boot forms the reset element and is elastic, the reset element would then be considered an elastic element.
Regarding claim 8: Fritz discloses the transmission connector device according to claim 1, as applied above. Fritz fails to disclose that the reset element is at least partially made of metal and/or of a wire. However, Moriyama, also related to transmission connector devices (see Figs. 2-3 and 6 and paragraphs 0030-0033) teaches cable clamp covers 171 and 172, for protecting connector elements, made of metal in order to prevent the optical cable from bending overbending (see paragraph 0053). . It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since it was a known to use metal materials to shroud connector elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Fritz device by using an metal material for the reset element to better prevent overbending of the optical fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights