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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35-42, 45, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0370552 (“LAMBOURN”) in view of US 2019/0384011 (SEITA”).
Regarding claim 35, LAMBOURN teaches a fiber optic adapter holder (170), comprising: a base member (161), the base member including a first surface facing a first direction and a second surface facing a second direction that is opposite the first direction (FIGs. 5, 6, 12); and two pairs of arms (171a, 171b) extending from the base member in the first direction on opposite sides of the base member, and the two pairs of arms and the first surface together defining a pocket region having an open, U-shape for receiving a fiber optic adapter (FIGs. 12, 13).
LAMBOURN does not teach that one of the two pairs of arms defines two fully enclosed openings that face each other. SEITA teaches a pair of arms (34) of an optical fiber adapter holder which defines two fully enclosed openings (36) that face each other (FIGs. 3, 4A, 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the arms of LAMBOURN so as to define two fully enclosed openings, as taught by SEITA. The motivation would have been to provide an alternative means for engaging connection with the fiber optic adapter (par. [0040]).
Regarding claim 36, LAMBOURN teaches that the other of the two pairs of arms does not define any fully enclosed openings (FIGs. 3-5, 9, 10, 12-14).
Regarding claim 37, LAMBOURN teaches that the one of the two pairs of arms are thinner than the other of the two pairs of arms (178; FIG. 13; par. [0084]).
Regarding claim 38, LAMBOURN in view of SEITA renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 35. The additional limitation; namely that each arm of the two pairs of arms is T-shaped, appears to involve mere changes in shape. It has been held that particular spatial configurations are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration imparts functional significance. As such persuasive evidence is presently absent in the current case, Examiner maintains that the particular change in shape set forth in the instant claim would have been an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 39, SEITA teaches that the one of the two pairs of arms includes chamfer surfaces (34c) adjacent the two fully enclosed openings (FIG. 4A).
Regarding claim 40, SEITA teaches that the chamfer surfaces face each other (FIG. 4A).
Regarding claim 41, LAMBOURN teaches a mounting feature (130) projecting from the second surface of the base member in the second direction (FIGs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 42, LAMBOURN teaches that the mounting feature includes dovetail structures (131, 132).
Regarding claim 45, LAMBOURN teaches that an entirety of the mounting feature is positioned offset from a center of the base member (FIGs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 48, LAMBOURN teaches a fiber optic adapter (210).
Claims 46, 47, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAMBOURN in view of SEITA and in view of US 2012/0027361 (“BROWER”).
Regarding claims 46 and 47, LAMBOURN in view of SEITA renders obvious the limitations of the respective base claims. LAMBOURN does not teach that the fiber optic adapter holder is constructed of plastic. BROWER teaches a plastic fiber optic adapter holder (par. [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to construct the fiber optic adapter holder of LAMBOURN out of plastic, as taught by BROWER. The motivation would have been to utilize a sturdy, inexpensive material.
Regarding claim 49, LAMBOURN teaches a fiber optic adapter holder (170), comprising: a base member (161), the base member including a first surface facing a first direction and a second surface facing a second direction that is opposite the first direction (FIGs. 5, 6, 12); and two pairs of arms (171a, 171b) extending from the base member in the first direction on opposite sides of the base member, the two pairs of arms and the first surface together defining a pocket region having an open, U-shape for receiving a fiber optic adapter (FIGs. 12, 13); a mounting feature (130) projecting from the second surface of the base member in the second direction (FIGs. 3, 4); wherein the other of the two pairs of arms does not define any fully enclosed openings (FIGs. 3-5, 9, 10, 12-14); and wherein an entirety of the mounting feature is positioned offset from a center of the base member (FIGs. 3, 4)
LAMBOURN does not teach that one of the two pairs of arms defines two fully enclosed openings that face each other. SEITA teaches a pair of arms (34) of an optical fiber adapter holder which defines two fully enclosed openings (36) that face each other (FIGs. 3, 4A, 4B); the one of the two pairs of arms includes chamfer surfaces (34c) adjacent the two fully enclosed openings (FIG. 4A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the arms of LAMBOURN so as to define two fully enclosed openings, as taught by SEITA. The motivation would have been to provide an alternative means for engaging connection with the fiber optic adapter (par. [0040]).
LAMBOURN also does not teach that the fiber optic adapter holder is constructed of plastic. BROWER teaches a plastic fiber optic adapter holder (par. [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to construct the fiber optic adapter holder of LAMBOURN out of plastic, as taught by BROWER. The motivation would have been to utilize a sturdy, inexpensive material.
The additional limitation; namely that each arm of the two pairs of arms is T-shaped, appears to involve mere changes in shape. It has been held that particular spatial configurations are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration imparts functional significance. As such persuasive evidence is presently absent in the current case, Examiner maintains that the particular change in shape set forth in the instant claim would have been an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 50, LAMBOURN teaches a fiber optic adapter (210).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43 and 44 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the Specification as originally filed, fails to disclose or render obvious that the mounting feature includes bumps, the dovetail structures being positioned between the bumps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights