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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed December 13, 2022.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as June 19, 2020, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/041,302) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
PCT international application number PCT/US21/38191 filed June 21, 2021.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 13, 2022, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
EP
21742247
06/21/2021
EP 4168837 A1
04/26/2023
US
PCT/US21/38191
06/21/2021
WO 2021258038 A1
12/23/2021
CN
202180043992
06/21/2021
CN 115917388 A
04/04/2023
US
18508965
11/14/2023
US 20240085642 A1
03/14/2024
The claims filed March 3, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1, 9, 14, & 15
1, 9, 14, & 15
Cancelled:
none
3, 4, & 10
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11-15 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 15 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11-15 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the third action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 3, 2026 has been entered.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
As indicated below, this includes the terms “adapter” and “connector”.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170176691 of Childers et al. (Childers) in view of United States patent application publication no. 10371903 of Nguyen et al.(Nguyen).
With respect to claim 1, Childers discloses a method for ensuring correct polarity in an optical link (Fig. 4, system 30, ¶ 33 and adjacent; ¶ 2, "Each of the fiber optic ferrules has a particular orientation, and the relationship of the position of the optical fibers to the fiber optic ferrule determines the polarity.") having a first transceiver and a second transceiver (¶¶ 2, 32; transceiver (not shown) per ¶ 32 and per ¶ 2, "The fiber optic jumper cables are either plugged directly into telecommunications equipment (e.g., a transceiver, etc.) or are connected to another fiber optic jumper cable by use of an adapter.") separated from one another (per the Figs.), comprising:
providing a first ferrule with guide pins (Fig. 4, top left male ferrule) and supporting optical fibers (generally at 12 upper left) carrying optical signals passing through the first transceiver (top left) and a second ferrule with guide pins (lower left male ferrule) and supporting optical fibers (generally at 12 lower left) carrying optical signals passing through the second transceiver (in Fig. 4, the transceivers (not shown) are connected to female ends of the jumper assemblies (left side) and require male ferrules with pins; Figs. 5-7 also show pins 112);
and providing at least one female-to-female jumper assembly (the jumper cable on the right with the two Type B adapters 34 at either end) having two female connectors couplable respectively to the first ferrule and the second ferrule via an adapter (the upper type B adapter) associated with the first transceiver (top left) and an adapter (the lower type B adapter) associated with the second transceiver (lower left),
the at least one female-to-female jumper assembly (generally at 20) having a plurality of optical fibers extending between the two female connectors,
wherein said at least one female-to-female jumper assembly (right cable with the two type B adapters) includes an inversion in an order of the plurality of optical fibers connecting the two female connectors (¶ 31, "In a Type B fiber optic jumper cable, the optical fibers are reversed."; ¶ 33, " Fig. 4 illustrates a system 30 that uses a B-type connectivity system using three Type B fiber optic jumper cables."), and
a key on each adapter (the adapter profile 34 in the middle of Fig. 4, the complementary key is the notch at the top) is aligned to a key (Fig. 1, key 14; ¶ 31, "the end of the fiber optic ferrule with the keys 14") on an outer housing of one of the connectors of the jumper assembly (the jumper assembly on the right has two male connectors with keys 14 that align with those of the adapters 34) that directly mates in the adapter (which the connectors of the right cable do), and
wherein when the optical link is completed using at least one male-to-male trunk assembly having a plurality of optical fibers extending between two male connectors (Fig. 4, right side jumper with fibers 20 is a male-to-male trunk assembly),
the male-to-male trunk assembly having an inversion in an order of the plurality of optical fibers extending between the two male connectors (the right side jumper is a type B jumper with the fibers reversed; ¶ 33, "FIG. 4 illustrates a system 30 that uses a B-type connectivity system using three Type B fiber optic jumper cables."),
the number of inversions of optical fibers between the two adapters is an odd number (the three jumper cables in Fig. 4 comprise an odd number).
Childers as set forth above does not disclose:
and the key on the outer housing of one of the connectors is on a short side of the connector
Nguyen discloses a spacers for use in a fiber optic connector that includes the use of keys on a short side of an optical fiber connection system:
"For example, if the spacer 100 in FIG. 2, has the key 130 on the left side (for a short connector), then the spacer 100 for the long connector will have the key on the opposite (right) side."
See Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the short side of a connector or adapter for a key along the lines of Nguyen in a system according to Childers as set forth above in order to enhance keying options and to accommodate different connector/adapter configurations. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (providing a keyed connector/adapter and a method therefor) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the key on one of the connectors is on a short side of the connector.
With respect to claim 5, Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 1, including one wherein
the optical link includes the at least one female-to-female jumper assembly and at least one male-to-male trunk assembly (per claim 1, above),
the at least one male-to-male trunk assembly does not mate directly with either the first ferrule or the second ferrule (the first and second ferrules are at opposite ends of the system 30 of Childers and separated from the male-to-male trunk by the female to female jumpers).
With respect to claim 8, Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 1, including one wherein
between the first transceiver and the second transceiver,
any two mating ferrules have end faces that are mated in opposing end face orientations.
This is generally seen as inherent as projections of one end face must be received by receptacles of the other. See Figs. 5 and 6 of Childers (N.B., antecedents indicating cited references are presumed by the last citation).
With respect to claim 14, Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above discloses an optical system (Childers Fig. 4, system 30, ¶ 33 and adjacent), comprising:
a first adapter communicatively associated with a first transceiver (in Fig. 4, the transceivers (not shown) are connected to female ends of the jumper assemblies (left side) and require male ferrules, or adapters, with pins; generally at 12 upper left);
a second adapter communicatively associated with a second transceiver (in Fig. 4, the transceivers (not shown) are connected to female ends of the jumper assemblies (left side) and require male ferrules, or adapters, with pins – same as above; generally at 12 lower left),
the first transceiver and the second transceiver being physically separated and optically coupled (per above and Fig. 4);
a first ferrule with guide pins (Fig. 4, top left male ferrule) inside the first adapter and having optical fibers (generally at 12 upper left) carrying optical signals passing through the first transceiver (top left; seen as inherent to preserve optical signaling);
a second ferrule with guide pins (lower left male ferrule) inside the second adapter and supporting optical fibers (generally at 12 lower left) carrying optical signals passing through the second transceiver (in Fig. 4, the transceivers (not shown) are connected to female ends of the jumper assemblies (left side) and require male ferrules with pins; Figs. 5-7 also show pins 112, seen as inherent to preserve optical signaling); and
at least one jumper assembly having two female connectors at opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers (the jumper cable on the right with the two Type B adapters 34 at either end),
a first of the two female connectors coupling to the first ferrule via the first adapter (per above and Fig. 4; e.g., the upper left jumper), and
a second of the two female connectors capable of coupling to the second ferrule via the second adapter (per above and Fig. 4; e.g., the lower left jumper), and
a key on each adapter (Fig. 1, key 14; ¶ 31, "the end of the fiber optic ferrule with the keys 14") is aligned to a key (the type B element profile 34 in the middle of Fig. 4, the complementary key is the notch at the top ) on an outer housing (the complementary key is the notch at the top and seen to be in the outer housing of the Type B elements) of one of the connectors (type B element 34) of the jumper assembly (right side) that directly mates in the adapter (per the connections of Fig. 4) and
the key on the outer housing of one of the connectors is on a short side of the connector (Nguyen, Fig. 2, per claim 1, above);
wherein said jumper assembly includes an inversion in an order of the plurality of optical fibers connecting the two female connectors (Childers ¶ 31, "In a Type B fiber optic jumper cable, the optical fibers are reversed."; ¶ 33, " Fig. 4 illustrates a system 30 that uses a B-type connectivity system using three Type B fiber optic jumper cables."),
the first transceiver and second transceiver and the at least one jumper assembly forming an optical link (per Fig. 4), and
wherein when the optical link includes at least one male-to-male trunk assembly having two male connectors on opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers and between said first and second transceivers (Fig. 4, right side jumper with fibers 20 is a male-to-male trunk assembly),
a total number of inversions of optical fibers between the two adapters is odd (the three jumper cables in Fig. 4 comprise and odd number and each jumper is a type B reversing jumper).
Claims 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above and further in view of Tripp Lite, "MTP/MPO Multimode Patch Cable", 2019, Chicago, IL, USA. Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/1162483/TRIPPLITE/N842-05M-12-MF.html (Tripp Lite, cited in the Written Opinion of PCT/US21/38191 but not in the present application).
With respect to claim 2, Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the optical link also includes an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector on opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers,
there being no inversion in an order of the optical fibers in the extender assembly.
Tripp Lite provides an MTP/MPO multimode patch cable that has a male end and a female end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patch cord / extender assembly along the lines of Tripp Lite in a system according to Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above in order to provide additional cord length while maintaining the connector gender (a female end gets the male connector of the patch cord which leaves the female connector available which maintains the connector gender). This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical link/assembly system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the optical link also includes an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector on opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers,
there being no inversion in an order of the optical fibers in the extender assembly.
With respect to claim 6, Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 1, but not one further comprising
an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector,
the extender assembly being coupled to at least one of the first ferrule or the second ferrule.
Tripp Lite provides an MTP/MPO multimode patch cable that has a male end and a female end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patch cord / extender assembly along the lines of Tripp Lite in a system according to Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above in order to provide additional cord length while maintaining the connector gender (a female end gets the male connector of the patch cord which leaves the female connector available which maintains the connector gender). This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical link/assembly system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector,
the extender assembly being coupled to at least one of the first ferrule or the second ferrule.
With respect to claim 9, Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above discloses a method for ensuring correct polarity in an optical link (Childers Fig. 4, system 30, ¶ 33 and adjacent) having a first transceiver and a second transceiver (¶¶ 2, 32; transceiver (not shown) per ¶ 32 and per ¶ 2, "The fiber optic jumper cables are either plugged directly into telecommunications equipment (e.g., a transceiver, etc.) or are connected to another fiber optic jumper cable by use of an adapter."), comprising:
providing a first ferrule with guide pins and supporting optical fibers carrying optical signals passing through the first transceiver (Childers Fig. 4, upper left), and
a second ferrule with guide pins and supporting optical fibers carrying optical signals passing through the second transceiver (Childers Fig. 4, lower left); and
providing two of only three configurations of connector assemblies to maintain correct routing of optical signals between the first transceiver and the second transceiver (Fig. 4 shows two configurations of connector assemblies: the top left transceiver connector assembly configuration with its Rx/Tx configuration, B-type connector assemblies for the jumper/trunk cables, and the bottom left transceiver connector assembly configuration with its Rx/Tx configuration),
the two configurations of connector assemblies including:
a jumper assembly having two female connectors on opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 4 shows a pair of female-to-female jumper assemblies that are so couplable),
a trunk assembly having two male connectors on opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 4, right side jumper with fibers 20 is a male-to-male trunk assembly),
wherein routing of the optical signals is carried out using at least one jumper assembly couplable to the first ferrule and the second ferrule via respective adapters of the first and the second transceivers, the jumper assembly including an inversion in an order of the plurality of optical fibers (¶ 31, "In a Type B fiber optic jumper cable, the optical fibers are reversed."; ¶ 33, " Fig. 4 illustrates a system 30 that uses a B-type connectivity system using three Type B fiber optic jumper cables.” Two of the cables are female-to-female, the upper and lower left cables), and
a key on each adapter (Fig. 1, key 14; ¶ 31, "the end of the fiber optic ferrule with the keys 14") is aligned to a key (the type B element profile 34 in the middle of Fig. 4, the complementary key is the notch at the top ) on an outer housing (the complementary key is the notch at the top and seen to be in the outer housing of the Type B elements) of one of the connectors (type B element 34) of the jumper assembly (right side) that directly mates in the adapter (per the connections of Fig. 4) and
the key on the outer housing of one of the connectors is on a short side of the connector (Nguyen, Fig. 2, per claim 1, above);
wherein when the optical link includes at least one trunk assembly (Fig. 4, right side jumper with fibers 20 is a male-to-male trunk assembly),
the trunk assembly including an inversion in an order of the plurality of optical fibers (the right side jumper is a type B jumper with the fibers reversed) and
wherein total number of inversions in optical fibers between the two adapters is odd (the three jumper cables in Fig. 4 comprise and odd number).
Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above does not disclose
an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector on opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers,
wherein when the extender assembly is used in addition to the jumper assembly and/or the trunk assembly and there is no inversion in the order of the plurality of optical fibers in the extender assembly.
Tripp Lite provides an MTP/MPO multimode patch cable that has a male end and a female end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patch cord / extender assembly along the lines of Tripp Lite in a system according to Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above in order to provide additional cord length while maintaining the connector gender (a female end gets the male connector of the patch cord which leaves the female connector available which maintains the connector gender). This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical link/assembly system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector on opposing ends of a plurality of optical fibers,
wherein when the extender assembly is used in addition to the jumper assembly and/or the trunk assembly and there is no inversion in the order of the plurality of optical fibers in the extender assembly
Additionally, in providing the extender assembly/patch cord of Tripp Lite, the combination would provide a third of three configurations of connector assemblies to maintain correct routing of optical signals between the first transceiver and the second transceiver.
With respect to claim 11, Childers in view of Nguyen and Tripp Lite as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 9, including one wherein
the optical link includes the at least one female-to-female jumper assembly and at least one male-to-male trunk assembly (Childers per claim 1, above),
the at least one male-to-male trunk assembly does not mate directly with either the first ferrule or the second ferrule (the first and second ferrules are at opposite ends of the system 30 of Childers and separated from the male-to-male trunk by the female to female jumpers).
With respect to claim 12, Childers in view of Nguyen and Tripp Lite as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 9, including one further comprising
an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector,
the extender assembly being coupled to at least one of the first ferrule or the second ferrule.
See claim 6, above.
Tripp Lite provides an MTP/MPO multimode patch cable that has a male end and a female end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patch cord / extender assembly along the lines of Tripp Lite in a system according to Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above in order to provide additional cord length while maintaining the connector gender (a female end gets the male connector of the patch cord which leaves the female connector available which maintains the connector gender). This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical link/assembly system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an extender assembly having exactly one male connector and one female connector,
the extender assembly being coupled to at least one of the first ferrule or the second ferrule.
With respect to claim 15, Childers in view of Nguyen and Tripp Lite as set forth above discloses an optical system (Childers Fig. 4, system 30, ¶ 33 and adjacent), including one comprising:
a first adapter communicatively associated with a first transceiver (¶¶ 2, 32; transceiver (not shown) per ¶ 32 and per ¶ 2, "The fiber optic jumper cables are either plugged directly into telecommunications equipment (e.g., a transceiver, etc.) or are connected to another fiber optic jumper cable by use of an adapter.” Generally at 12 upper left);
a second adapter communicatively associated with a second transceiver (¶¶ 2, 32; transceiver (not shown) per ¶ 32 and per ¶ 2, "The fiber optic jumper cables are either plugged directly into telecommunications equipment (e.g., a transceiver, etc.) or are connected to another fiber optic jumper cable by use of an adapter.” Generally at 12 lower left),
the first and the second transceivers being optically coupled (Fig. 4); and
a plurality of fiber optic assemblies (cables 12 of Fig. 4: upper, lower, and on the right),
each of the plurality of optical fibers having opposing ends (as real things tend to do),
the opposing ends being terminated by a first fiber optic connector and a second fiber optic connector (inherent, per usual fiber optic construction, Fig. 4),
the fiber optic connectors having a gender of either male or female (Fig. 4, both male and female ends are shown), and
wherein when fiber optic assemblies have fiber optic connectors with the same gender,
the plurality of optical fibers are inverted (all cables shown in Fig. 4 are type B which have reversed ), and
a key on each adapter (Fig. 1, key 14; ¶ 31, "the end of the fiber optic ferrule with the keys 14") is aligned to a key (the type B element profile 34 in the middle of Fig. 4, the complementary key is the notch at the top ) on an outer housing (the complementary key is the notch at the top and seen to be in the outer housing of the Type B elements) of one of the fiber optic connectors (type B element 34) of the jumper assembly (right side) that directly mates in the adapter (per the connections of Fig. 4) and
the key on the outer housing of one of the connectors is on a short side of the connector (Nguyen, Fig. 2, per claim 1, above).
Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above does not disclose:
when the fiber optic assemblies have fiber optic connectors with an opposite gender,
the plurality of optical fibers are not inverted.
Tripp Lite provides an MTP/MPO multimode patch cable that has a male end and a female end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patch cord / extender assembly along the lines of Tripp Lite in a system according to Childers as set forth above in order to provide additional cord length while maintaining the connector gender (a female end gets the male connector of the patch cord which leaves the female connector available which maintains the connector gender). This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical link/assembly system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
when the fiber optic assemblies have fiber optic connectors with an opposite gender, the plurality of optical fibers are not inverted.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190339458 of Pimpinella (Pimpinella).
With respect to claim 7, Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the fiber optic ferrules all have a non-perpendicular angled end face relative to a direction of mating/optical beam propagation.
Pimpinella discloses an angle polished multi-fiber connector that includes (Fig. 4):
the fiber optic ferrules all have a non-perpendicular angled end face relative to a direction of mating/optical beam propagation.
¶ 15, "To achieve high return loss, the connectors 401 and 405 in FIG. 4 have ferrules 403, 407 which are polished with a contact angle 410 of 8 degrees wherein the surface angles away from the connector key 402, as specified in TIA FOCIS-5 for MPO type connectors and defined as “angled down.”"
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use angled ferrule surfaces along the lines of Pimpinella in a system according to Childers in view of Nguyen as set forth above in order to achieve high return loss. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical link/assembly system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the fiber optic ferrules all have a non-perpendicular angled end face relative to a direction of mating/optical beam propagation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Nguyen and Tripp Lite as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190339458 of Pimpinella (Pimpinella).
With respect to claim 13, Childers in view of Nguyen and Tripp Lite as set forth above discloses the method according to claim 9, but not one wherein
the fiber optic ferrules all have non-perpendicular angled end face relative to a direction of mating/optical beam propagation.
Pimpinella discloses an angle polished multi-fiber connector that includes (Fig. 4):
the fiber optic ferrules all have a non-perpendicular angled end face relative to a direction of mating/optical beam propagation.
¶ 15, "To achieve high return loss, the connectors 401 and 405 in FIG. 4 have ferrules 403, 407 which are polished with a contact angle 410 of 8 degrees wherein the surface angles away from the connector key 402, as specified in TIA FOCIS-5 for MPO type connectors and defined as “angled down.”"
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use angled ferrule surfaces along the lines of Pimpinella in a system according to Childers in view of Nguyen and Tripp Lite as set forth above in order to achieve high return loss. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical link/assembly system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the fiber optic ferrules all have a non-perpendicular angled end face relative to a direction of mating/optical beam propagation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
In this case, Applicant has used "adapters" and "connectors" as different structures in this application (and all applications). See [0029] and [0031]:
In Figs. 3-6 there are representations of a transceiver 220 with a fiber optic connector 222 and an adapter 224. The fiber optic connector 222 associated with the transceiver 220 is preferably configured to have the male configuration ( with guide pins 124). This male configuration setup of the fiber optic connector 222 is fixed inside the adapter 224..."
Thus, Applicant has used the plain meaning of connectors and adapters. There is nothing in the specification to show that these terms have been used in any other way.
Examiner response: Applicant has not shown how examiner’s use of such vocabulary and interpretation have overcome any rejection. As such, examiner gives these comments no weight. The rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant also asserts that one of skill in the art would not consult DeBolle [sic] et al. as it does not have any information about "connectors" or "adapters" for the "fiber optic cabling" that is mentioned in the reference. The entire reference makes it clear that the subject matter and disclosure is only related to electrical connections, specifically connectors and adapters that are electrical components "compliant with standard IEC-60603-7-7:2010 published by IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) on May 1, 2010, such as an IEC-60603-7-7:2010 front-end adapter.” [0110] Thus, this publication is unrelated to the present invention and the optical fiber system.
As noted by the Federal Circuit in In re Smith Int'l, 871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (copy attached for the Examiner's convenience),
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is "consistent with the specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Examiner response: Applicant has not shown how examiner’s use of such vocabulary and interpretation have overcome any rejection. As such, examiner gives these comments no weight. The rejections are not rebutted. De Bolle is still seen as valid for the points it makes.
The Examiner cited the key in Nguyen et al. as being on the short side - and using that concept with the system in Childers et al. However, there is no reason to move the keys in Childers et al. to be on the short side. Childers et al. already has two keys, one that is on each of the long sides. These keys can be moved between a forward position and a rearward position. In the present invention, the keys are not moveable between a forward position and a rearward position. In fact, allowing the keys to be movable in the present invention would destroy the whole reason for the present invention - to limit the number of configurations that are used to ensure that the polarity is always correct. Allowing the keys to be moved would therefore change the basis of operation in the Childers et al. device, which is not allowed. See MPEP 2143.01VI [sic].
Applicant has also amended the claims to require that the keys are on an outer housing of one of the connectors. The keys in both Childers et al and Nguyen et al. have their keys on the inside of the outer housing. Even if the references could be combined, they still fail to disclose or suggest the invention.
Examiner response: Examiner cited motivation in enhancing "keying options and to accommodate different connector/adapter configurations" Further, in making the combination, the combining of prior art elements according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (providing a keyed connector/adapter and a method therefor) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 2023228949 A1 published July 20, 2023 was previously cited.
No new art is cited.
This is a request for continued examination/RCE of the current application. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
March 10, 2026