DETAILED ACTION
Multiple Applications for Reissue of Same Patent
The instant reissue application is the fifth application for reissue of US Patent No. 10,422,962 B2. Specifically, this fifth reissue application is a continuation reissue of fourth reissue Application No. 18/111,690 (now reissued Patent No. RE50,674 E), which is a continuation reissue of third reissue Application No. 17/012,884 (now reissued Patent No. RE49,504 E), which is a continuation reissue of first reissue Application No. 17/003,664 (now reissued Patent No. RE49,208 E). Second reissue Application No. 17/012,859 (now reissued Patent No. RE49,198 E) is also a continuation reissue of first reissue Application No. 17/003,664.
Maintenance Fees
USPTO records show that the 4-year maintenance fees have been timely filed1 and, thus, maintenance fee payments are up to date for each of (i) original Patent No. 10,422,962 B2, (ii) reissued Patent No. RE49,198 E, (iii) reissued Patent No. RE49,208 E, (iv) reissued Patent No. RE49,504 E, and (v) reissued Patent No. RE50,674 E.
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on October 15, 2025, which has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
New reissue claims 20-35 are subject to examination. Patent claims 1-19 have been canceled.
Proposed Replacement Drawing Sheets
The proposed replacement drawing sheets filed on October 15, 2025 have been approved for entry by the examiner.
Objections to Amendments – Formalities
The amendments to the specification filed on October 15, 2025 are objected to because:
In the 5th line of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 1, ll. 6-14, “now RE49,504” should read “now U.S. Patent No. RE49,504”.
In the 7th line of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 1, ll. 6-14, “2023, which” should read “2023, now U.S. Patent No. RE50,674, which”.
In the 12th line of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 1, ll. 6-14, “2023, which” should read “2023, now U.S. Patent No. RE50,674, which”.
Restriction in Earlier-Concluded Examination
During the earlier-concluded examination of parent Application No. 15/300,147 (now Patent No. 10,061,090 B2), the previous examiner initially set forth a restriction requirement based on the lack of unity of invention standard appropriate for international applications entering the national stage. The restriction requirement mailed on June 26, 2017 required election of one of the species of Figs. 6-12 (claims 1-15), Figs. 13-15 (claim 16), and Figs. 16-25 (claims 20-23).
In the election and amendment filed on August 8, 2017, the applicant elected the species of Figs. 16-25, removed a limitation from claim 4, cancelled non-elected claims 8, 12 and 14-45, added new claims 46-52, and asserted that claims 1-7, 9-11, 13 and 46-52 read on the elected species (Figs. 16-25). This resulted in examination of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13 and 46-52. Thus, while the previous examiner initially considered claims 20-23 to be directed to the elected species (Figs. 16-25), it is clear that the applicant’s response resulted in a change in the examiner’s understanding of the correspondence between the claims and the three species. Accordingly, it is apparent that independent claim 1 was generic to the two species of Figs. 6-12 and Figs. 16-25.
In the Office action mailed on August 23, 2017, the previous examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-11, 13 and 46-52 as being unpatentable over the prior art. In order to overcome the rejections, the amendment filed on November 21, 2017 added the “electrically conductive bands” limitation to independent claim 1. Explicit support for this newly-added limitation is found only at col. 9, ll. 33-37, which describes the non-elected species of Figs. 6-12. Note that the elected species of Figs. 16-25 is described as having “partial cylinders 835” (col. 12, ll. 40-42) rather than “electrically conductive bands”. However, Fig. 17 could be interpreted as providing support for a correspondence between the disclosed partial cylinders 835 and the claimed “electrically conductive bands”.
In the Office action mailed on January 31, 2018, the previous examiner found new claims 53-55 to be drawn to a non-elected invention and withdrew these new claims from consideration. The previous examiner also withdrew the prior art rejections of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13 and 46-52 and allowed these claims based on the addition of the “electrically conductive bands” limitation to independent claim 1.
Since the previous examiner did not find amended independent claim 1 to be drawn to a non-elected species, it remains apparent that independent claim 1 was generic to the species of Figs. 6-12 (disclosed as having the newly claimed “electrically conductive bands”) and the species of Figs. 16-25 (apparently considered to have “electrically conductive bands” defined by the partial cylinders 835).
New claims 53-55 were canceled by the amendment filed on February 22, 2018 resulting in the issuance of the corrected Notice of Allowability on April 23, 2018 with claims 1-7, 9-11, 13 and 46-52 allowed.
Based on the prosecution history, allowed independent claim 1 of parent Application No. 15/300,147 (which issued as Patent No. 10,061,090 B2) is generic to the two species of Figs. 6-12 and Figs. 16-25. Further, the allowance of claim 1 constituted a de facto withdrawal of the restriction requirement at least with respect to the two species of Figs. 6-12 and Figs. 16-252. The previous examiner did not address rejoinder of claims to non-elected species because all such claims had already been canceled by the applicant.
Since the earlier-concluded examination of parent Application No. 15/300,147 resulted in the allowance of a generic claim (and, thus, a de facto withdrawal of the restriction requirement at least with respect to the species of Figs. 6-12 and Figs. 16-25), the claims of the instant application for reissue of a continuation of parent Application No. 15/300,147 may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of an application for reissue of Patent No. 10,061,090 B2. Likewise, the claims of an application for reissue of Patent No. 10,061,090 B2 may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant reissue application.
Claim Construction
Independent claim 20 and dependent claims 21-35 of the instant application for reissue of Patent No. 10,422,962 B2 are considered to be directed only to the species of Figs. 16-25 due to at least the following:
The claim 20 requirements that (i) the robust active coupler is spring biased towards the coupling position, (ii) a ramp arrangement for automatically moving the robust active coupler against the spring bias from the coupling position to the non-coupling position when the fiber optic connector is being inserted into the port, and (iii) the spring bias returns the robust active coupler to the coupling position once the fiber optic connector has been fully inserted into the port..
The claim 21 requirement of a spring configured to bias the robust active coupler toward the coupling position.
The claim 22 requirement that the spring mounts with a release tab, the release tab configured to be manually depressed to move the robust active coupler from the coupling position to the non-coupling position.
The claim 23 requirement that the robust active coupler defines an opening for receiving the fiber optic connector, the ramp arrangement including at least one ramp positioned at the opening.
The claim 25 requirement that the ramp arrangement includes retention structures positioned at opposite sides of the opening, each of the retention structures includes a ramp that faces at least partially in an outward direction and a retention surface that faces in an inward direction.
The claim 26 requirement that the retention structures are positioned at major sides of the opening.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 10,422,962 B2, which issued from US Application No. 16/018,895, which was a continuation of US Application No. 15/300,147, which was the national stage of International Application No. PCT/EP2015/056720, which claimed priority to US Provisional Application No. 61/971,739. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of International Application No. PCT/EP2015/056720 as filed on March 27, 2015.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) prohibits any amendment that introduces new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
35 USC 251(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the application for reissue.
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The amendment filed on October 15, 2025 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the reasons given below.
New reissue claim 20 recites “A fiber optic adapter…comprising… a ramp arrangement for automatically moving the robust active coupler against the spring bias from the coupling position to the non-coupling position when the fiber optic connector is being inserted into the port, wherein the spring bias returns the robust active coupler to the coupling position once the fiber optic connector has been fully inserted into the port” (ll. 1-2 and 8-11). The original disclosure describes (i) the hybrid adapter 836 as having the slide clip 868 integrated as part thereof, (ii) the slide clip 868 as having retentions structures 876 that each include a ramp 877 and a retention surface 878, (iii) the retention structures 876 as engaging opposite sides of the connector body 821, (iv) the ramps 832 at the side notches 831 of the connector 820 as engaging the ramps 877 of the adapter 836 as the connector 820 is inserted into the adapter 836, (v) contact between the ramps 832 of the connector 820 and the ramps 877 of the adapter 836 as causing the slide clip 868 to move from the coupling position to the non-coupling position, (vi) inward insertion of the connector 820 continuing until the retention surface 830 of the connector 820 moves inwardly past the retention surfaces 878, and (vii) the spring 880 as biasing the spring clip 868 back to the coupling position when the retention surface 830 moves past the retention surfaces 878. Thus, the original disclosure establishes that the claimed “ramp arrangement for automatically moving the robust active coupler…” is defined by both structure of the adapter 836 and structure of the connector 820. There is no support in the original disclosure for the adapter 836 (alone) comprising the claimed “ramp arrangement for automatically moving the robust active coupler…” Thus, claim 20 recites new matter.
New reissue claim 28 recites “the housing includes at least one internal sleeve configured to receive a corresponding at least one ferrule of the fiber optic connector.” According to the original disclosure, the hybrid adapter 836 can include internal sleeves 864 positioned within the interior of the adapter 836, with the sleeves 864 configured to receive the ferrules 833 of the connector 820. There is no support in the original disclosure for the adapter (or its housing) including only one internal sleeve for receiving only one ferrule, as now encompassed by the “at least one” language of claim 28. Thus, claim 28 recites new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Establishing Assignee’s Ownership Interest
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as the assignee has not properly established its ownership interest in the patent for which reissue is being requested. An assignee must establish its ownership interest in order to support the consent to a reissue application required by 37 CFR 1.172(a). The assignee’s ownership interest is established by:
filing in the reissue application evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee, or
specifying in the record of the reissue application where such evidence is recorded in the Office (e.g., reel and frame number, etc.).
The submission with respect to (a) and (b) to establish ownership must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP 1410.01.
Specifically, the Statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c), i.e., Form PTO/AIA /96, filed on October 15, 2025 identifies the chain of title for Patent No. 10,422,962 B2 from TYCO ELECTRONICS RAYCHEM BVBA to COMMSCOPE CONNECTIVITY BELGIUM BVBA as being recorded at “Reel 0597057, Frame 0464”. This identification is inaccurate. It should read “Reel 059057, Frame 0464”.
An appropriate paper satisfying the requirements of 37 CFR 3.73 must be submitted in reply to this Office action.
Consent of Assignee
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking a proper written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP 1410.01.
Specifically, the Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee, i.e., Form PTO/AIA /53, filed on January 21, 2026 was not signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP 325, subsection V. The title “Authorized Signatory” does not establish that the person has the authority to sign on behalf of the assignee. Pursuant to 37 CFR 3.73(d)(1), papers signed by a person lacking a presumed authority to sign on behalf of the assignee must include a statement that the person signing the submission is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.
A proper assent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed on January 21, 2026 is defective because it fails to specifically and properly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
In this case, the reissue declaration states the following:
…it was error to have recited in claim 12 the connector body that supports at least one ferrule supporting at least one optical fiber and an environmental seal for providing a seal between the connector body and the fiber optic adapter. The connector body and the environmental seal are not necessary for patentability.
The claiming of the connector body in patent claim 12 was relied upon by applicant as the error in the patent serving as the basis for earlier reissue Application No. 17/012,859. See the reissue declaration filed in Application No. 17/012,859 on October 30, 2020. Further, the claiming of the environmental seal in patent claim 12 was relied upon by applicant as the error in the patent serving as the basis for earlier reissue Application No. 17/012,884. See the reissue declaration filed in Application No. 17/012,884 on October 30, 2020.
If the same error(s) corrected in the parent reissue application(s) is also being corrected in this continuation reissue application, but the error(s) is being corrected in a different way, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2). See MPEP 1414, subsection II(D). In this case, applicant has failed to provide the required explanation.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 20-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
GROUND 2: Claims 20-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is explained above. Claims 21-27 and 29-35 are included in this rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 3: Claims 20-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for failing to comply with the original patent requirement. See MPEP 1412.01.
As explained in MPEP 1412.01:
The reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent, as required by 35 U.S.C. 251. The entire disclosure, not just the claim(s), is considered in determining what the patentee objectively intended as the invention. See In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613, 21 USPQ2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and In re Rowand, 526 F.2d 558, 187 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1975).
The patentee’s “intent to claim” is analogous to the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). See In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). However, the original patent standard and the written description requirement are not the same. Where the written description requirement is based on what the skilled artisan would have understood was within the possession of the inventor, recent Federal Circuit case law indicates that the original patent requirement requires something more.
A claim submitted in reissue may be rejected under the original patent clause of 35 USC 251 if the original specification demonstrates, to one skilled in the art, an absence of disclosure sufficient to indicate that a patentee could have claimed the subject matter. The essential inquiry is whether one skilled in the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the patentee. See In re Amos.
The original patent requirement is not satisfied when the patent only discloses one invention (e.g., a particular class of jet injectors), as evidenced by the clearly repetitive use of a descriptive term or classifier (e.g., jet injector) throughout the specification, but the reissue claims recite a broader/different invention (e.g., a generic injector encompassing a non-jet injector). See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Where a new invention is sought by reissue, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention. See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, claims drawn to an invention comprising a newly claimed combination of features, which were only disclosed in the original patent as suggested alternatives (and not as a single combination), or which were only disclosed as part of the original invention and not as an invention separate from the original invention, would not satisfy the original patent requirement. See Antares Pharma Inc.
When the written description and drawings fail to disclose that a feature required by the patent claims is an optional feature of the invention, omission of such feature from the reissue claims fails to satisfy the original patent requirement. See Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1352, 2019 USPQ2d 221227 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In this case:
The original disclosure indicates that applicant’s invention is (i) a fiber optic connection system that uses a slide clip to provide retention of a fiber optic connector within a mating fiber optic adapter, and (ii) a hybrid fiber optic connector that provides both electrical and optical connectivity. See, for example, the abstract, which is consistent with the remainder of the original disclosure.
Nowhere does the original disclosure indicate that applicant’s invention is a subcombination constituting only the fiber optic adapter.
New claims 20-33 fail to meet the original patent requirement because:
The reissue claims are not directed to the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent. The reissue claims are to a subcombination constituting only the fiber optic adapter, but the original disclosure repeatedly defines applicant’s invention as (i) a fiber optic connection system that uses a slide clip to provide retention of a fiber optic connector within a mating fiber optic adapter, and (ii) a hybrid fiber optic connector that provides both electrical and optical connectivity.
The specification does not clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed subcombination as a separate invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 4: Claims 20-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is explained above. Claims 21-27 and 29-35 are included in this rejection because of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
GROUND 5: Claims 20-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
New reissue claim 20 recites “A fiber optic adapter…comprising… a ramp arrangement for automatically moving the robust active coupler against the spring bias from the coupling position to the non-coupling position when the fiber optic connector is being inserted into the port, wherein the spring bias returns the robust active coupler to the coupling position once the fiber optic connector has been fully inserted into the port” (ll. 1-2 and 8-11). The original disclosure describes (i) the hybrid adapter 836 as having the slide clip 868 integrated as part thereof, (ii) the slide clip 868 as having retentions structures 876 that each include a ramp 877 and a retention surface 878, (iii) the retention structures 876 as engaging opposite sides of the connector body 821, (iv) the ramps 832 at the side notches 831 of the connector 820 as engaging the ramps 877 of the adapter 836 as the connector 820 is inserted into the adapter 836, (v) contact between the ramps 832 of the connector 820 and the ramps 877 of the adapter 836 as causing the slide clip 868 to move from the coupling position to the non-coupling position, (vi) inward insertion of the connector 820 continuing until the retention surface 830 of the connector 820 moves inwardly past the retention surfaces 878, and (vii) the spring 880 as biasing the spring clip 868 back to the coupling position when the retention surface 830 moves past the retention surfaces 878. Thus, the original disclosure establishes that the claimed “ramp arrangement for automatically moving the robust active coupler…” is defined by both structure of the adapter 836 and structure of the connector 820. It is not possible, based on the original disclosure, for the adapter itself to comprise the claimed ramp arrangement. For these reasons, claim 20 fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. Such inconsistency with the disclosure renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 22 recites “the spring mounts with a release tab” (l. 1). It is unclear what it defined by the phrase “mounts with”. Does this require the spring to be mounted in/on/to the release tab? Does it require the spring and the release tab to be mounted together to some other structure? The examiner suggests that “mounts with” be changed to “mounts within”.
Claim 24 recites “the opening has a matching transverse cross-sectional shape with the fiber optic connector”. Since prior claim 20 is directed to a subcombination constituting only the fiber optic adapter, the fiber optic connector is not positively recited. As a result, claim 24 seeks to define the claimed opening with respect to unclaimed subject matter. This renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 33, the preamble “A hybrid fiber optic adapter of claim 20” is indefinite because claim 20 is not directed to a “hybrid” fiber optic adapter. The examiner suggests that claim 33 be amended to read “A hybrid fiber optic adapter comprising the fiber optic adapter of claim 20, and further comprising electrical contacts mounted to the housing.”
In claim 34, the preamble “A fiber optic connection system of claim 20” is indefinite because claim 20 is not directed to a fiber optic “connection system”. The examiner suggests that claim 34 be amended to read “A fiber optic connection system comprising the fiber optic adapter of claim 20, and further comprising the fiber optic connector, which includes a connector body…”
Claims 21, 23, 25-32 and 35 are included in this rejection because of their dependencies.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Chen et al.”
US Publication No. 2009/0175580 A1
“Halbach et al. ‘380”
EP Publication No. 1 006 380 A1
“Halbach et al. ‘469”
GB Publication No. 2 344 469 A
“Halbach et al. ‘619”
EP Publication No. 1 006 619 A2
“Iwashita”
US Patent No. 4,846,719
“Koreeda et al.”
US Publication No. 2011/0243508 A1
“Legler et al.”
US Publication No. 2008/0089650 A1
“Lichoulas et al.”
US Publication No. 2015/0219857 A1
“Luther et al.”
US Publication No. 2006/0269194 A1
“Moore et al.”
US Publication No. 2009/0148106 A1
“Mulligan”
US Publication No. 2006/0093277 A1
“O’Brien”
US Patent No. 4,896,939
“Powell”
US Publication No. 2010/0061681 A1
“Robin et al.”
US Patent No. 5,134,679
“Sawara et al.”
JP Publication No. S59-075218 A (with translation)
“Shimazu et al.”
US Publication No. 2011/0293223 A1
“Smith et al.”
US Patent No. 8,480,312 B2
“Theis et al.”
EP Publication No. 1 337 883 B1
“Wong et al.”
US Publication No. 2009/0220200 A1
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
GROUND 6: Claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E in view of Halbach et al. ‘380.
Claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application recite essentially the same fiber optic adapter that is recited as part of the fiber optic connection system defined by claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E. While some claim limitations are arranged differently in claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E, modifications involving mere rearrangement of claim limitations are considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, modifications involving the mere elimination of claimed features are also within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, modifications involving a mere change in amount or degree are recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application differ from claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E because claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application require that (i) the housing, coupler and ramp arrangement are part of an adapter, and (ii) the housing is configured to be retained on a structure.
Halbach et al. ‘380 discloses a fiber optic connection system including:
A first connector member 22 having a connector body 80 that is received in and mates with a port 18, 20 defined in a connector body (or housing) 12 of a second connector member (or adapter) 10. See Figs. 1 and 5-7; ¶¶ 0008, 0013. Figs. 1, 4 and 5 show a mounting tab extending from the housing 12 and having a mounting hole such that the housing 12 is configured to be retained on a structure.
The connector body 80 supports ferrules (not shown) supporting optical fibers (not shown). See Figs. 1 and 5-7; ¶¶ 0013-0014. Note the dummy optical ferrules 58 illustrated on the dummy connector 54 in Figs. 3 and 5, which are described as corresponding in position and size to the optical ferrules on the connector body 80 such that dummy ferrules 58 engage the same optical devices within the adapter’s connector body 12 as the ferrules on the connector body 80. See ¶¶ 0011, 0013-0014.
An environmental seal (not shown) is positioned between the connector body 80 of the first connector member 22 and the connector body 12 of the adapter 10. See ¶¶ 0002, 0014.
A slide clip coupler 14 carried by the adapter 10 is slidably movable relative to the port 18, 20 between coupling and uncoupling positions to releasably retain the connector body 80 within the port 18, 20. See Figs. 1-2 and 5-7; ¶¶ 0008-0014. The coupler 14 moves transversely relative to a connector insertion axis defined by the second connector member (or adapter) 10.
A peripheral retention flange (see Fig. 5) provided on the connector body 80 and provided with ramped tabs 82 that engage retention structures 44 of the coupler 14. See Figs. 2 and 5; ¶ 0013. Note the dummy connector 54 in Figs. 3-5, which has a similar peripheral retention flange provided with ramped tabs 68 that engage the retention structures 44 of the coupler 14. See ¶ 0012.
From the teachings of Halbach et al. ‘380, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E by (i) making the housing, coupler and ramp arrangement part of an adapter because this facilitates coupling to other fiber optic connectors, and (ii) configuring the housing to be retained on a structure because this facilitates mounting on a wall or enclosure.
GROUND 7: Claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E in view of Halbach et al. ‘380.
Claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application recite essentially the same fiber optic adapter that is recited as part of the fiber optic connection system defined by claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E. While some claim limitations are arranged differently in claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E, modifications involving mere rearrangement of claim limitations are considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, modifications involving the mere elimination of claimed features are also within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, modifications involving a mere change in amount or degree are recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application differ from claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E because claims 20, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application require that (i) the adapter comprises a housing, and (ii) the housing is configured to be retained on a structure.
See the discussion of Halbach et al. ‘380 in GROUND 6.
From the teachings of Halbach et al. ‘380, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E by (i) providing the adapter with a housing so that the adapter surrounds, protects and securely retains the connector body, and (ii) configuring the housing to be retained on a structure because this facilitates mounting on a wall or enclosure.
GROUND 8: Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,504 E.
Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30 and 31 of the instant application recite essentially the same fiber optic adapter that is recited as part of the fiber optic connection system defined by claims 20-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,504 E. While some claim limitations are arranged differently in claims 20-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,504 E, modifications involving mere rearrangement of claim limitations are considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, modifications involving the mere elimination of claimed features are also within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, modifications involving a mere change in amount or degree are recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
GROUND 9: Claims 20, 23, 24, 30, 31, 34 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E in view of Halbach et al. ‘380.
Claims 20, 23, 24, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application recite essentially the same fiber optic adapter that is recited as part of the fiber optic connection system defined by claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E. While some claim limitations are arranged differently in claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E, modifications involving mere rearrangement of claim limitations are considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, modifications involving the mere elimination of claimed features are also within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 20, 23, 24, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application differ from claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E because claims 20, 23, 24, 30, 31, 34 and 35 of the instant application require that (i) the housing, coupler and ramp arrangement are part of an adapter, and (ii) the housing is configured to be retained on a structure.
See the discussion of Halbach et al. ‘380 in GROUND 6.
From the teachings of Halbach et al. ‘380, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E by (i) making the housing, coupler and ramp arrangement part of an adapter because this facilitates coupling to other fiber optic connectors, and (ii) configuring the housing to be retained on a structure because this facilitates mounting on a wall or enclosure.
GROUND 10: Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over any of:
Claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E in view of Halbach et al. ‘380 (GROUND 6) and further in view of Koreeda et al.
Claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E in view of Halbach et al. ‘380 (GROUND 7) and further in view of Koreeda et al.
Claims 20-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,504 E (GROUND 8) and further in view of Koreeda et al.
Claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E in view of Halbach et al. ‘380 (GROUND 9) and further in view of Koreeda et al.
Claim 33 of the instant application differs from claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E, claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E, claims 20-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,504 E, and claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E because claim 33 of the instant application requires that the adapter includes electrical contacts mounted to the housing.
Koreeda et al. teaches a hybrid fiber optic connector 300. See Figs. 4-6; ¶ 0030. The connector 300 comprises:
A first connector member 200-1 having a connector body 240 that is received in and mates with a port 115 defined in a housing 110-1 of a second connector member (or adapter) 100. See Figs. 4-11; ¶¶ 0030, 0036, 0044, 0050, 0053-0056.
A cylindrical electrical contact 220 mounted over a ferrule 210 within the connector body 240 of the first connector member 200-1. See Figs. 4-6 and 13-14; ¶¶ 0034-0038.
Electrical contacts 130 mounted to the housing 110-1 of the second connector member (or adapter) 100, which electrical contacts 130 engage the electrical contact 220 when the connector body 240 is received in the port 115 of the housing 110-1. See Figs. 4-6, 8-9 and 13; ¶¶ 0043-0044, 0047-0049, 0055.
Alternative electrical contacts 1130 (i.e., alternatives to the contacts 130) are illustrated in Fig. 17. See ¶ 0062.
From the teachings of Koreeda et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify any one of claims 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,198 E, claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,208 E, claims 20-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,504 E, and claims 32-34 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,674 E by providing the adapter with electrical contacts mounted to the housing so that the electrical contacts in the adapter can engage the electrical contacts of the fiber optic connector to provide an electrical connection.
Overcoming Double Patenting Rejection
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Specification
The title of the invention is not properly descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Powell discloses a fiber optic connection system including:
A ruggedized connector 200 having a connector body 230 that is received in and mates with a port (see Figs. 3 and 6C-6D) defined by a socket 320 formed in a connector body 310 of a dual purpose adapter (or second connector) 300. See Figs. 2A-2B, 4 and 6A-6D; ¶¶ 0026, 0030-0032. The ruggedized connector is water resistant and weatherproof and provides for an optical connection of high integrity. See ¶¶ 0007, 0026.
The connector body 230 supports a fiber ferrule 260. See Figs. 2B, 6C and 6D; ¶ 0026. While ¶ 0026 refers to element 260 as a “fiber”, the corresponding element 130 of an alternative connector 100 (see Figs. 1A-1B) is referred to in ¶ 0025 as both a “ferrule” and a “fiber”. The skilled artisan would recognize from the drawings and description that element 260 is a conventional ferrule supporting at least one optical fiber.
The connector body 310 of the adapter 300 houses a fiber ferrule receptacle 510 having an aperture 520 that receives a sleeve (see Figs. 6C-6D) aligned with a central plane of the port (see Figs. 3 and 6C-6D) defined by the socket 320 for receiving the fiber ferrule 260 when the connector body 230 of the connector 200 is inserted in the port. See Figs. 4-6D; ¶ 0033. While not called such explicitly, it is clear from Figs. 6C-6D as well as ¶ 0033 that the sleeve constitutes a ferrule alignment sleeve.
A slide clip coupler 330 carried by the adapter 300 is slidably movable relative to the port (see Figs. 3 and 6C-6D) defined by the socket 320 between coupling and uncoupling positions to releasably retain the connector body 230 within the port. See Figs. 4-7D; ¶¶ 0030, 0033-0038.
The slide clip coupler 330 has resilient (i.e., spring) fingers 660 that engage and ride over ramps 670 on the connector body 310 such that the slide clip coupler 330 is resiliently (i.e., spring) biased toward the coupling position (see Figs. 6A-6B) and must be pressed downward (against the spring bias) to move to the uncoupling position (see Figs. 7A-7B). See ¶¶ 0037-0038 together with the discussion of the actuation of the coupler in ¶¶ 0035-0036. Thus, the resilient fingers 660 function as cantilevered leaf springs that spring bias the coupler 330 toward the coupling position.
Halbach et al. ‘619 discloses a fiber optic connection system including:
A first connector member 14 releasably coupled to a second connector member (or adapter) 12. See Figs. 1-8; ¶ 0007.
The first connector member 14 has a connector body 26 with a body portion 28 that supports ferrules (not shown) supporting optical fibers (not shown), wherein the body portion 28 has a generally oval shape in cross section. See Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0008.
The adapter 12 has a connector body 16 with a body portion 18 that supports ferrules (not shown) supporting optical fibers (not shown), wherein the body portion 18 has a generally oval shape in cross section. See Figs. 1-5; ¶ 0007.
The connector body 26 of the first connector member 14 is received in and mates with a port (defined, at least in part, by a gap 24) defined in the adapter 12. See Figs. 3-7; ¶¶ 0007-0009, 0012.
A slide clip coupler 44 carried by the adapter 12 is slidably movable relative to the port (defined, at least in part, by the gap 24) between coupling and uncoupling positions to releasably retain the connector body 26 within the port. See Figs. 1-8; ¶¶ 0007-0012.
An environmental seal 30 is positioned between the connector body 26 of the first connector member 14 and the connector body 16 of the adapter 12. See Figs. 4-5 and 7; ¶ 0008.
Luther et al. teaches a connector member 20 having a connector body 48. See Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0023, 0028-0029. The connector body 48 is provided with a shoulder 56 that cooperates with an adjacent shoulder (see Fig. 2) to define a groove (see Fig. 2) that receives an O-ring (not shown). See Fig. 2; ¶ 0029. See also ¶ 0026, which discusses sealing through the use of O-rings to protect the connector when exposed to adverse environments. While illustrated with a threaded coupling nut 34 for securing the connector body 48 to another connector member (not shown), Luther et al. teaches that the coupling nut 34 can be replaced with other connections structures including a push-pull mechanism or a spring clip. See ¶ 0026. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the O-ring sealing structure is applicable to other types of connectors.
Legler et al. teaches a first connector member having a two-part body 302, 308 received within a port defining body 424 of a second connector member 420. See Figs. 4-7; ¶¶ 0044, 0051. A slide clip coupler 500 is used to secure the first connector member within the port 424. See Figs. 4-7; ¶ 0054. An environmental seal 346 is positioned between the first connector member body portion 308 and the second connector member 420 for providing a seal around the body portion 308. See Figs. 5-7; ¶ 0047.
Chen et al. teaches a fiber optic connection system including:
A duplex connector member 22 having a pair of connector bodies 62, 62 (each having a housing 70 coupled to a shell 82) that are received in and mate with respective ports 100, 102 defined in a connector body 101 of an adapter 26. See Figs. 2-7; ¶¶ 0026-0033, 0037, 0042-0043.
The connector bodies 62, 62 of the duplex connector member 22 support respective ferrules 68, 68 supporting respective optical fibers 12/16, 12/16. See Figs. 1-3, 5 and 7; ¶¶ 0023-0024, 0027, 0031, 0035-0036, 0038, 0042, 0044.
The connector body 101 of the adapter 26 houses ferrule alignment sleeves 104, 104 (within cylindrical members 109, 109) aligned with respective central planes of the ports 100, 102 for receiving the ferrules 68, 68 when the connector bodies 62, 62 are inserted in the ports 100, 102. See Figs. 6A-7; ¶ 0047.
Moore et al. and Mulligan teach hybrid connectors, i.e., combined fiber optic and electrical connections.
Halbach et al. ‘469 and Sawara et al. teach connectors with slide clip couplers.
Shimazu et al. discloses a hybrid fiber optic connection system including a first connector 200, a second connector 200’ and an adapter 500. See Figs. 1-3 and 22-24; ¶¶ 0088, 0090, 0127, 0148. In the embodiment of Figs. 22-30, the connection system comprises:
A first housing 202 of the first connector 200 that constitutes a connector body having a transverse cross-sectional shape. See Figs. 22-24; ¶¶ 0129, 0147.
The connector body 202 houses and includes two generally cylindrical members having cylindrical portions 212, 224, 228 that individually and/or collectively constitute sleeves. See Figs. 23-24 with Figs. 3-4 and 15-17; ¶¶ 0095, 0099, 0131, 0138-0140, 0147, 0149-0150.
The sleeves 212, 224, 228 are located at a front of the connector body 202 when the “front” is defined as the end/side of the connector body 202 that is closest to the adapter 500. See Figs. 22-24.
The portions 224, 228 of the sleeves 212, 224, 228 each include an insulative ferrule portion 222 mounted therein. See Fig. 24 with Figs. 16-17; ¶¶ 0138-0140, 0149-0150. The insulative ferrule portions 222 each constitute a “ferrule” because they are annular members that receive/house optical fibers 110.
Electrical contacts 240 mount over the portions 212 of the sleeves 212, 224, 228 so as to be carried with the connector body 202. See Figs. 23-24 with Figs. 3-4; ¶¶ 0092, 0095-0097, 0099-0101.
Additional electrical contacts 520c mount over the portions 224 of the sleeves 212, 224, 228 so as to be carried with the connector body 202 (when assembled with the adapter 500). See Figs. 23-24 and 26-29; ¶¶ 0147, 0152-0157.
The connector body 202 is received in a port (see Figs. 22-24 and 26-27) defined in the adapter 500 and mates with the adapter 500 for optically coupling the optical fibers 110 to optical fibers 110’ in another connector member 200’. See Figs. 22-27; ¶¶ 0129, 0134, 0147-0148, 0152-0154.
Smith et al. teaches a fiber optic connection system including a first ruggedized connector member 32 having a plug portion 56 supporting a ferrule 100, with the plug portion 56 and ferrule 100 received within a port 35 and a ferrule alignment sleeve 202 of a ruggedized adapter (or second connector member) 34. See Figs. 1-6; col. 5, ll. 21-40; col. 6, ll. 19-50. The adapter 34 is mounted within a housing wall (see Figs. 11-12) of an optical enclosure 19 (e.g., a cabinet, a fiber distribution hub, a drop terminal, etc.) such that the adapter 34 and the first connector member 32 are inserted at least partially through an opening 22 in the housing wall of the enclosure 19 to thereby form a terminal assembly. See Figs. 11-18; col. 7, ll. 46-63.
Wong et al. teaches a fiber optic connector including a first connector member 100 releasably coupled to a second connector member (or adapter) 200. See Figs. 1-8; ¶ 0020. The first connector member 100 has a connector body 102 carrying ferrules 114, 116 that receive optical fibers 118 of fiber optic cables 110, 112. See Figs. 3-6; ¶ 0026-0029. The connector body 102 is provided with an orientation key 136 positioned generally between the ferrules 114, 116, wherein the orientation key 136 engages a slot 224 in the second connector member (or adapter 200) to ensure that the first connector member 100 is properly oriented relative to the second connection member 200. See Figs. 1-2 and 5-7; ¶¶ 0035-0036.
Robin et al. discloses a fiber optic connection system including a first connector (including components 36, 37 and 41) that mates with a second connector (including component 22). See Figs. 2-5; col. 2, ll. 31-37 and 62-68; col. 3, ll. 39-42. The second connector constitutes an adapter. The connection system comprises:
A three-part housing 36, 37, 41 of the first connector that constitutes a connector body having a transverse cross-sectional shape. See Figs. 2-4; col. 2, ll. 62-68.
The connector body 36, 37, 41 includes a barrel member 41 that comprises two generally cylindrical sleeves 43, 44. See Figs. 2-4; col. 2, l. 64 to col. 3, l. 8.
The sleeves 43, 44 are located at a front of the connector body 36, 37, 41 when the “front” is defined as the end/side of the connector body 36, 37, 41 that is closest to the adapter (including component 22). See Figs. 2-4.
The sleeve 43 includes a ferrule assembly 27, 29, 33 (with a ferrule 33) mounted therein, and the sleeve 44 includes a ferrule assembly 28, 30, 34 (with a ferrule 34) mounted therein. See Figs. 2 and 4; col. 2, ll. 52-61; col. 3, ll. 1-8.
The sleeves 43, 44 of the barrel member 41 (which is part of the three-part connector body 36, 37, 41) are received in ports 23, 24 defined in second connector (i.e., adapter) body 22 and mates therewith for optically coupling the optical fibers 25, 26 to other optical components/fibers. See Figs. 2-4; col. 2, ll. 31-40; col. 3, ll. 39-42.
While illustrated and described as a fiber optic connector, Robin et al. further teaches that it is desirable to provide for both optical connections and electrical connections. See col. 2, ll. 24-26. Thus, while Robin et al. fails to teach the claimed electrical contacts that mount at least partially over the sleeves 43, 44, Robin et al. indicates the desirability of a hybrid connection system having both optical and electrical connections.
O’Brien teaches a hybrid fiber optic connection system including a first connector (see Figs. 2 and 4) having a first connector body 1 that mates with a second connector body 13 of a second connector (see Fig. 3). See Figs. 2-4; col. 4, ll. 24-31; col. 5, ll. 42-47; col. 6, ll. 13-49. The second connector constitutes an adapter. The first connector (see Figs. 2 and 4) comprises:
A first generally cylindrical member 6 that constitutes a first sleeve located at a front of the connector body 1. Alternatively, the first generally cylindrical member 6 constitutes a “ferrule” because it is an annular member that receives/houses other connection elements (i.e., second generally cylindrical member 17, third generally cylindrical member 7 and optical fiber 28). See Figs. 2 and 4; col. 4, l. 67 to col. 5, l. 4; col. 5, ll. 21-26.
A second generally cylindrical member 17 mounted in the first generally cylindrical member 6. The second generally cylindrical member 17 constitutes a second sleeve located at a front of the connector body 1. Alternatively, the second generally cylindrical member 17 constitutes a “ferrule” because it is an annular member that receives/houses other connection elements (i.e., third generally cylindrical member 7 and optical fiber 28). See Figs. 2 and 4; col. 4, ll. 49-53; col. 4, l. 67 to col. 5, l. 1; col. 5, ll. 21-26.
A third generally cylindrical member 7 mounted in the second generally cylindrical member 17. The third generally cylindrical member 7 constitutes a “ferrule” because it is an annular member that receives/houses another connection element (i.e., optical fiber 28). See Figs. 2 and 4; col. 4, ll. 47-61.
A first generally cylindrical electrical contact 5 mounted over the first sleeve 6 and the second sleeve 17 so as to be carried with the connector body 1, and a second generally cylindrical contact 16 mounted over the first sleeve 6 and the second sleeve 17 so as to be carried with the connector body 1. Alternatively, the second generally cylindrical contact 16 constitutes a sleeve located at a front of the connector body 1, and the first generally cylindrical contact 5 is mounted over this sleeve 16. See Figs. 2 and 4; col. 4, ll. 38-47; col. 4, l. 54 to col. 5, l. 13; col. 5, ll. 21-26.
Iwashita teaches a connector with an electrically conductive band.
Lichoulas et al. teaches a connector with O-ring seals mounted in grooves in a connector body.
Theis et al. teaches a connector with dual sleeves having a generally oval shape.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center3: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail4 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 Payment of the 4-year maintenance fee was not required for reissued Patent Nos. RE49,504 E and RE50,674 E since they were not in force on (i.e., issued before) the maintenance fee due date.
2 This finding is consistent with the fact that subsequent Application No. 16/018,895 (now Patent No. 10,422,962 B2) was identified by the applicant as a “continuation” (i.e., an application for the same invention as parent Application No. 15/300,147) rather than as a “divisional” (i.e., an application for a distinct invention).
3 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).
4 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights