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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on May 19, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 8-16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripumaree et al. (US 2021/0096317 A1) in view of Saito (JP H09178994 A).
Regarding claim 8, Ripumaree discloses an optical cable assembly comprising a body (20 in Fig. 5) defining a passageway therein, the body comprising a cable insertion portion (left end portion into which cable 90 is inserted), wherein the cable insertion portion is round and defines a cable insertion face having a first area; a cable securing portion (central portion of body 20 beyond cable jacket 90) adjacent to the cable insertion portion; and a port insertion portion (right end portion having locking feature 20L and keying portion 20KP in Figs. 5-6) adjacent to the cable securing portion, the port insertion portion comprising a distal end, wherein the distal end defines a port insertion face having a second area that is less than the first area (distal end of housing with locking feature 20L and keying portion 20KP has smaller area than at the cable insertion portion as seen in Fig. 5); an optical cable comprising a round cable jacket (see Figs. 4-6, jacket is disclosed as being a tube in paragraph 0039); one or more strength members (elements 92 on top and bottom of tubing 30 in Figs. 5-6; appear to be mislabeled since they do not appear to be optical fibers and are more likely the tubing heat shrink 99 “disposed about a portion of the tubing” described in paragraph 0043, which must provide some degree of strength); a plurality of optical fibers (paragraph 0039); wherein the optical cable is disposed within the body such that: the round cable jacket terminates within the cable insertion portion; the one or more strength members terminates within the cable securing portion; the plurality of fibers is disposed within the port insertion portion (Fig. 5); and an adhesive disposed within the body for securing the one or more strength members within the body (paragraph 0042 discloses strength members as a portion of the jacket, and an adhesive placed into the housing for securing the jacket to the housing).
Still regarding claim 8, Ripumaree teaches the claimed invention except for a plurality of tubes. Saito discloses an optical cable (2 in Fig. 5C) comprising a plurality of tubes (6) disposed within the round cable jacket, with at least one optical fiber in each tube of the plurality of tubes, the plurality of tubes disposed within the output portion having a tapered interior wall (36, 38) reducing a height of the passageway for reducing an inner diameter of the distal end of the body as compared with an outer diameter of the round cable jacket at the opposite proximal end. Saito further discloses an adhesive (34) within the body for securing the plurality of tubes. Since both inventions relate to optical cables, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a plurality of tubes as disclosed by Saito in the optical cable assembly of Ripumaree for the purpose of providing additional protection to the optical fibers. Saito does not explicitly disclose forcing the plurality of tubes closer to each other. However, heat shrinkable wraps 36 and 38 will naturally exert force inwardly, which would act to compress the plurality of tubes 6 to at least some degree.
Regarding claim 9, the proposed combination of Ripumaree and Saito teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating adhesive disposed within the cable securing portion. However, Ripumaree discloses the use of adhesives within the housing for securing the jacket or tubing in paragraphs 0042-0043 and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to dispose an adhesive within the cable securing portion in order to facilitate securing of any components within the cable securing portion of the housing.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Ripumaree further discloses a proximal end of the port insertion portion is round in cross-section in Fig. 4. The proposed combination of Ripumaree and Saito teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the distal end of the port insertion portion is substantially discorectangular in cross-section. However, Ripumaree discloses bores or openings may have any suitable shape or geometry for cooperating with its respective external connector in paragraph 0061 and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the distal end of the port insertion portion to have any shape, including substantially discorectangular in cross-section, as a matter of obvious design choice depending on the shape of the ports.
Regarding claim 12, Ripumaree discloses a surface of the port insertion portion comprises a port engagement groove (20KP) in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 13, Ripumaree discloses the port engagement groove is longitudinally disposed on the port insertion portion in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 14, Ripumaree discloses a transition between the cable insertion portion and the cable securing portion defines a jacket stop within the passageway such that an end of the round cable jacket abuts the jacket stop in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 15, Ripumaree discloses a heat shrink (99) disposed around at least a portion of the cable securing portion and the cable insertion portion in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 16, Ripumaree discloses an o-ring (65) on at least one of the port insertion portion and the cable securing portion in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 27, Ripumaree discloses the optical cable assembly being attached to a terminal (200) in the abstract and Fig. 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed May 19, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights