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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 November 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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 35-38, 40, 43, 45-46, 52, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,793,683 to Cannon et al. (“US1”).
Regarding Claim 35, US1 describes a telecommunications device (see Figs 11-13), comprising:
a sealed enclosure (140) having an outer enclosure wall including port defining portions (144), the port defining portions defining connector ports having outer ends (142) and inner ends (151), the connector ports being configured for directly receiving fiber optic connectors (opposite 24 of Fig 13) through the outer ends of the connector ports (see Col 8 Ln 35 – Col 9 Ln 20); and
subassemblies that mount at the inner ends of the connector ports, each of the subassemblies including:
a first housing piece (120, 132);
a second housing piece (23, 46) mounted to the first housing piece (via 54/138), a first portion of the second housing piece being positioned in an interior of the first housing piece and a second portion of the second housing piece extending out of the first housing piece in a direction that is away from one of the connector ports (see Fig 13); and
a ferrule (24) supporting an optical fiber (25) that extends through the ferrule in a lengthwise orientation, a portion of the ferrule being positioned within the first housing piece and within the second housing piece (see Fig 13).
US1 does not describe the port defining portions unitarily integrated with the outer enclosure wall. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the port defining portions of US1 integral to the enclosure wall, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article that has been formerly formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of separate pieces to be joined.
Regarding Claim 36, US1 describes the connector ports include structures (threaded portions, as shown in Fig 13) configured to engage corresponding structures of the fiber optic connectors as the fiber optic connectors are received through the outer ends of the connector ports to inhibit movement of the fiber optic connectors within the connector ports.
Regarding Claim 37, US1 describes the ferrule as spring-biased (via 44) toward the one of the connector ports.
Regarding Claim 38, US1 describes a spring (44) positioned between the ferrule and the second housing piece.
Regarding Claim 40, US1 describes the first housing piece mounted at the inner end of the connector port (see Figs 11-13).
Regarding Claim 43, US1 describes the first housing piece configured to snap connect to the outer enclosure wall (via 128/130).
Regarding Claim 45, US1 describes each of the subassemblies including a ferrule alignment sleeve (112) that receives the ferrule.
Regarding Claim 46, US1 describes the ferrule as a single-fiber ferrule (see Fig 3 and Col 4 Lns 56-65).
Regarding Claim 53, US1 describes a telecommunications device (see Figs 12-13) comprising:
an enclosure (140) having an outer enclosure wall including a port defining portion (144), the port defining portion defining a connector port having an outer end (142) and an inner end (151), the connector port being configured for directly receiving a fiber optic connector through the outer end of the connector port (see Col 8 Ln 35 – Col 9 Ln 20); and
a subassembly (23, 120) that mounts at the inner end of the connector port, the subassembly including a ferrule (24) positioned such that an end of the ferrule faces toward the port, the ferrule supporting an optical fiber (25) that extends through the ferrule in a direction toward the end of the ferrule, the ferrule being spring biased (via 44) toward the port.
US1 does not describe the port defining portions unitarily integrated with the outer enclosure wall. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the port defining portions of US1 integral to the enclosure wall, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article that has been formerly formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of separate pieces to be joined.
Regarding Claim 55, US1 describes the ferrule as a single-fiber ferrule (see Fig 3 and Col 4 Lns 56-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51 and 56 are allowed.
Claims 39, 41-42, 44, 47-50, and 53-54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 39 describes the ferrule as not spring-biased.
Claim 41 describes the second housing piece configured to mount to the first housing piece by forcing apart elastic arms of the subassembly.
Claim 44 describes the first housing piece and the second housing piece configured to connect to each other by a snap-fit connection.
Claim 47 describes the structures of the connector ports including latches.
Claim 48 describes the structures of the connector ports unitarily integrated structures of the port defining portions and include latching tabs.
Claim 51 describes the first housing piece and the second housing piece configured to connect to each other by a snap-fit connection, and the structures of the connector ports extending radially toward central longitudinal axes of the connector ports
Claim 53 describes the subassembly including housing pieces that connect to each other by snap-fit connection.
Claim 54 describes the structure of the connector port moving away from the central longitudinal axis and then snapping toward the central longitudinal axis to a latching position in which the fiber optic connector is latched.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Claim 42 depends from Claim 41 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Claims 49-50 depend from Claim 48 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Claim 56 depends from Claim 51 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights