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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, species IIA (claims 21-30), and further species 1 (Fig. 1 and related figures) and species A (fig. 8, 11 and related figures) is acknowledged. The traverse is on the ground that both the restriction requirement and species requirements are improper that the combination requires the specifics of sub-combination and that species require further explanations. This is not found persuasive as the specifics of the sub-combination is not in the group I cand that it has its own utility separate from the claimed invention of the combination. The species of the drawings have clearly defined in the specification with different technical characteristics and as such each cited restriction and the species would require different search strings and/or class/subclasses. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
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.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Brusberg” et al. US 10782474 B2.
Regarding claim 21, Brusberg teaches a fiber optic ferrule 220 (see figs. 29-32, and all 1-40 and summary) comprising:
a main body 221 having a top portion and a bottom portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32), the top portion defining a first top portion and a second top portion, the bottom portion defining a first bottom
PNG
media_image1.png
246
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
portion and a second bottom portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32),
the main body 221 defining: a top cut-out defined at the first top portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32); a bottom cut-out defined at the first bottom portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32),
at least one of the top cut-out and the bottom cut-out being configured to engage a housing of a fiber optic connector 251 and orient the main body within the housing of the fiber optic connector 251 (see at least figs. 28,27 and17-18 and col. 23, 3rd parag, col. 19, 2nd parag.); and
PNG
media_image2.png
233
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the main body 221 being thinner in a first dimension extending between the top cut-out and the bottom cut-out than in a second dimension extending between the second top portion and the second bottom portion (clearly shown in at least fig. 30).
However, Brusberg does not explicitly express the functional language that the above top and bottom cut outs to engage a housing of a fiber optic connector. Nonetheless, Brusberg states that the ferrule can be coupled to a receptacle/housing by interference fit (see col. 18, lines 48-58, also see fig. 38B). Thus 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 interior of the housing/receptacle for receiving the cut-out potions by interference fit as such configuration would control the alignment of the ferrule inside the receiver.
The arguments presented in in rejection of claim 1, including the obviousness and motivation are incorporated in rejection of the following claims as follows:
22. (Previously presented) The fiber optic ferrule of claim 21, the top portion comprising a first forward facing surface defined between the top cut-out and a second portion of the top portion, and the bottom portion comprising a second forward facing surface defined between the bottom cut-out and a second portion of the bottom portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32).
23. (Previously presented) The fiber optic ferrule of claim 22, wherein a greatest thickness dimension of the main body is defined between the second portion of the top portion and the second portion of the bottom portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32).
24. (Previously presented) The fiber optic ferrule of claim 23, wherein the greatest thickness dimension is defined adjacent to the first forward facing surface and the second forward facing surface (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32).
25. (Previously presented) The fiber optic ferrule of claim 22, the main body being thinner between the top portion and the bottom portion forward of each of the first forward facing surface and the second forward facing surface than between the second portion of the top portion and the second portion of the bottom portion (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32).
With regard to claims 26 and 29, Brusberg further teaches the main body defining an end face and a rear face; the top portion and the bottom portion each extending between the end face and the rear face, wherein a first distance between the end face and the rear face at the top portion is similar to a second distance between the end face and the rear face at the bottom portion (shown in at least figs. 29-32); and a MT-ferrule fiber optic (see at least col. 7, 2nd parag.) .
. However, Brusberg does not teach that the rear face at the top portion is different than a second distance between the end face and the rear face at the bottom portion and that wherein the fiber optic ferrule being smaller than an MT-ferrule. Nonetheless, such limitations are germane to the invention, but related to a size/dimension of the ferrule rather than revealing its novelty and that how such difference in distance/size would make any novel characteristics than that of Brusberg teaching, and that one or ordinary skill could easily can modify Brusberg ferrule with different dimensions to fit or interface with a desired connector and that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
. 27. (Previously presented) The fiber optic ferrule of claim 21, the main body defining an end face and a rear face; the top portion and the bottom portion each extending between the end face and the rear face; the main body defining a first vertical dimension extending between the top portion and the bottom portion adjacent to the end face, the top cut-out, and the bottom cut-out; the main body defining a second vertical dimension extending between the top portion and the bottom portion adjacent to the rear face, wherein the first vertical dimension and the second vertical dimension comprise parallel dimensions of equal magnitude (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32).
28. (Previously presented) The fiber optic ferrule of claim 21, the main body comprising supporting structures for at least two optical fibers (clearly shown in at least figs. 29-32).
PNG
media_image3.png
147
202
media_image3.png
Greyscale
30. (Previously presented) The fiber optic ferrule of claim 21, the main body defining an end face and a rear face; the end face defining a non-perpendicularly angled surface relative to a direction of optical beam propagation defined by structures configured to support at least three optical fibers (see at least figs. 29-32 and 38-40; col. 39, lines 6-32).
.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20020094174 A1
US 9529155 B2
US 6357933 B1
US 20140153875 A1
US 10782474 B2
US 20160341909 A1
US 20130136401 A1
US 9651743 B2
US 6195477 B1
US 11340406 B2
US 5746764 A
US 4178068 A
US 9028154 B2
US 6402388 B1
US 20040005122 A1
US 4762389 A
US 8740473 B2
US 6089759 A
US 6435730 B1
US 6085003 A
US 20020131722 A1
US 20030215190 A1
US 20210333483 A1
US 20170293088 A1
US 6106162 A
US 20230061756 A1
US 5016970 A
US 20140219609 A1
US 10451830 B2
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874