DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 9/27/2024 and 5/20/2026 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 6/3/2022.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Cunningham et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0216829).
With respect to Claim 1: Cunningham discloses “An optical connector cleaning tool that cleans a connection end surface of an optical connector” [Cunningham, ¶ 0006 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“comprising: a cleaning shaft that” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“comprises a pressing surface that presses a cleaning element having a belt shape against the connection end surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and holds the cleaning element having turned back at the pressing surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“a supply part that supplies the cleaning element to the pressing surface via a supply path” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and a collection part that collects the cleaning element from the pressing surface via a collection path” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“wherein the cleaning shaft further comprises: a first main surface; and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“the supply path and the collection path are along the first and second surfaces” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and the optical connector cleaning tool further comprises a path reversing part that reverses the supply path and the collection path between the first main surface and the second main surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
With respect to Claim 2: Cunningham discloses “The optical connector cleaning tool according to claim 1, wherein the path reversing part includes an opening or a groove that penetrates between the first main surface and the second main surface; and the supply path crosses the collection path at the opening or groove” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
With respect to Claim 3: Cunningham discloses “The optical connector cleaning tool according to claim 2, wherein the path reversing part reverses the supply path and the collection path while maintaining a non-contact state between the cleaning element passing through the supply path and the cleaning element passing through the collection path” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
With respect to Claim 4: Cunningham discloses “The optical connector cleaning tool according to claim 1 wherein the path reversing part includes: a first opening or a first groove that guides the cleaning element passing through the supply path from the first main surface to the second main surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and a second opening or a second groove that guides the cleaning element passing through the collection path from the first main surface to the second main surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
Claim Construction
Claim language reciting an alternative format presents the Office with a choice of examining either alternative presented, but not both. Thus all claims that depend on the alternative not examined claim limitations are withdrawn from consideration. Appropriate action is required.
For example Claim 4 states “a first opening or a first groove” so that the Office must choose either. Further, if the Office chooses “a first opening” then Claims 5-6 further limit this and will be examined, yet Claims 7-8 will be omitted as further limiting a non-elected limitation. The same goes if the Office chooses “a first groove”, then Claims 5-6 will be omitted as further limiting a non-elected limitation and Claims 7-8 will be examined.
For Examination purposes, the Office is choosing the “first and second openings” and not “the grooves”, thus Claims 7-8 are rejected under the same rational as Claim 4.
With respect to Claim 5: Cunningham discloses “The optical connector cleaning tool according to claim 4, wherein the first opening is shifted from the second opening in a longitudinal direction of the cleaning shaft” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
With respect to Claim 6: Cunningham discloses “The optical connector cleaning tool according to claim 4 wherein a width of the first opening is narrower toward a front end of the cleaning shaft, and a width of the second opening is narrower toward a rear end of the cleaning shaft” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
With respect to Claim 9: Cunningham discloses “The optical connector cleaning tool according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning shaft further comprises: a head member that comprises the pressing surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and a support member that supports the head member” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and the path reversing part is disposed in the head member” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
With respect to Claim 10: Cunningham discloses “The optical connector cleaning tool according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning shaft further comprises: a head member that comprises the pressing surface” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and a support member that supports the head member” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13];
“and the path reversing part is disposed in the support member.” [Cunningham, ¶ 0033-0034, 0042-0043 with Figure 4, 12, and 13].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights