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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 6 there is a typographical error. Element ‘2a00’ should be labeled ‘200’.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Inventorship
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.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19; Claim 19 is 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 method, since the claim is directed to a method but recites no steps.
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 1-3 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkman, III et al. (US 20080310795 A1), hereafter Parkman in view of Roth et al. (US 20050069262 A1), hereafter Roth.
Regarding claims 1-3; Parkman teaches (see Figure 2-3) a dust cap (26; title, Paragraph [0022]) comprising: a main body (28) configured for insertion within a port of a connector adapter (50; Paragraph [0022]), the main body (28) comprising: a ferrule cavity (36) at an insertion end (32) of the main body (28), the ferrule cavity (36) being configured to cover a ferrule end (62) of a connector therein to block dust from contaminating the ferrule end (62) while the ferrule cavity (36) covers the ferrule end (62; see Figure 3 and Paragraph [0026]); and a grip (40) attached to a proximal end (30) of the main body (28), the grip (40) being configured to aid a user in inserting the dust cap (26) into the port of the connector adapter (50) or in removing the dust cap (26) from the connector adapter (50; Paragraph [0024]); wherein the proximal end (30) is an opposite end of the main body (28) from the insertion end (32).
Parkman does not teach a spring portion configured to adjust a length of the main body of the connector adapter based on whether the dust cap is in a compressed state or an uncompressed state. However, in the same field of endeavor, Roth teaches (see Figure 1):
a spring portion (124) configured to adjust a length of the main body (102) of the connector adapter (100) based on whether the dust cap is in a compressed state or an uncompressed state (when compressed the front portion 122 is pushed rearward towards the rear portion 120, reducing the length of the overall main body 102; Paragraph [0032]).
wherein the spring portion (124) is deformable between the uncompressed state and the compressed state (Paragraph [0032]), the length of the main body (102) being greater when the dust cap is in the uncompressed state than when the dust cap is in the compressed state (when compressed the front portion 122 is pushed rearward towards the rear portion 120, reducing the length of the overall main body 102; Paragraph [0032]).
wherein the main body (102) comprises a base portion (rear portion 120) and an extension portion (front portion 122), the spring portion (124) being located between (see Figure 1, 124 is between 120 and 122) and connecting together the base portion (120) and the extension portion (122).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dust cap taught by Parkman to include the spring portion and extension/front portion taught by Roth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Roth teaches that the compressed state actuates the doors 108 to expose the fiber (Paragraph [0032]), which protects the ferrule and prevents the accumulation of dust.
Regarding claims 10; Parkman/Roth teach the dust cap of claim 3 (see rejection to claims 1-3 above). Parkman does not teach a spring portion. However, in the same field of endeavor, Roth teaches (see Figure 1) wherein the spring portion (124) is directly attached to the base portion (120) and is also directly attached to the extension portion (122). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the dust cap taught by Parkman to include the spring portion and extension portion taught by Roth to directly attach the spring portion to the base portion and the extension portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to construct the spring portion and extension portion directly attached to the base portion on the ferrule side of the dust cap because of the construction taught by Roth (Figure 1; Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 11; Parkman/Roth teach the dust cap of claim 3 (see rejection to claims 1-3 above). Parkman does not teach a spring portion, but does teach that the dust cap (26) including the grip portion (40) and base portion (28) are integrally formed with the resilient member (42) and latching feature (38; Paragraph [0023]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the dust cap taught by Parkman when modified to include the spring portion and extension portion taught by Roth to have a unitary or monolithic construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to construct the entire dust cap unitarily to save on manufacturing costs and because the other features of the dust cap taught by Parkman were already integrally formed.
Regarding claim 12; Parkman/Roth teach the dust cap of claim 1. Parkman does not teach a ramp cover configured to cover a ramp portion of a ramp adapter. However, in the same field of endeavor, Roth teaches (see Figure 9) a ramp cover (920; Paragraph [0068-0069]) configured (Paragraph [0068]) to cover a ramp portion (952; tabs 954 engage slots 952 (Paragraph [0069])) of a ramp adapter (950) attached to the connector adapter (100) into which the dust cap (104) is configured for insertion, the ramp cover (920) being configured to prevent accumulation of dust (Paragraph [0068]) on the ramp portion (952) while the dust cap (104) is inserted into the port of the connector adapter (100). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dust cap of Parkman to include the rear construction forming a labyrinth seal 920 as a ramp cover as taught by Roth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Roth teaches “By using such a seal, the rear portion of the connector can be more securely protected from dust. In this way, the amount of dust or other contaminants reaching the mating face 912 is reduced” (Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claims 13-16; Parkman/Roth teaches the dust cap of claim 1. Parkman further teaches:
wherein the ferrule cavity (36) has a shape and depth configured for the ferrule end (62) of the connector to be inserted at least partially within the ferrule cavity (36) to protect the ferrule end (62) from dust contamination (“is of sufficient length such that the polished end face of the ferrule 62 does not contact a surface of the dust cap 26” (Paragraph [0026,0028])).
wherein the ferrule cavity (36) has a shape and depth configured for the ferrule end (62) of the connector to be inserted fully within the ferrule cavity (36) to protect the ferrule end (62) from dust contamination (“is of sufficient length such that the polished end face of the ferrule 62 does not contact a surface of the dust cap 26” (Paragraph [0026,0028])).
wherein the ferrule cavity (36) has a substantially similar shape or profile as the ferrule end (62) of the connector (“The ferrule opening 36, as shown, is sized to interact with the internal structural geometry of the LC adapter for exemplary purposes only and may be sized differently to accommodate other single and multi-fiber ferrules” (Paragraph [0028]).
wherein the ferrule cavity (36) has a depth that is at least substantially similar to or greater than a depth of the ferrule end (62) of the connector (“The ferrule opening 36, as shown, is sized to interact with the internal structural geometry of the LC adapter for exemplary purposes only and may be sized differently to accommodate other single and multi-fiber ferrules” (Paragraph [0028]); see also Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 17; Parkman/Roth teaches the dust cap of claim 1. Parkman further teaches (see Figure 2 and Figure 4) comprising a latch (38) configured to secure the dust cap (26; Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 18; Parkman/Roth teaches the dust cap of claim 17. Parkman further teaches (see Figure 2 and Figure 4) wherein the latch (38) is formed vertically above a base portion (28) of the main body (dust cap 26; see Figure 2, latch 38 is vertically above base portion 28 of the dust cap 26).
Regarding claim 19; Parkman/Roth teaches the dust cap of claim 1. Parkman further teaches (see Figure 3) a method for connection (Paragraph [0025-0026]) a dust cap (26) to a connector adapter (50) using the dust cap of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
Regarding claim 4; The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or reasonably suggest:
The dust cap of claim 4, including all the limitations of the base and intervening claims it depends on (especially wherein the spring portion is deformable between the uncompressed state and the compressed state, the length of the main body being greater when the dust cap is in the uncompressed state than when the dust cap is in the compressed state), and wherein the spring portion comprises at least one strut that has a first end, where the at least one strut is pivotably attached to the base portion at a first hinge point, and a second end, where the at least one strut is pivotably attached to the extension portion at a second hinge point, the first and second ends being opposite ends of the at least one strut.
Regarding claims 5-9; Claims 5-9 are allowable by virtue of dependency on claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 20110058775 A1) discloses a dust cap, see entire disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER L KAULFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/P.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
