DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to better define the alignment direction with the passageway of the nosepiece for the Z-direction. This amendment overcomes the prior 35USC112 rejection.
Applicant further amended the claims to clarify the cantilevered arm to have a securing feature with the housing configured to receive it. However, the limitation “securing feature” could be considered to be any general shape or structure that limits movement. Therefore, the general recessed portion (61; figure 5) would secure this nosepiece portion by preventing rotation when inserted. Furthermore, adding “hooks” or other protrusions or securing means (as in dependent claims) would be within the level of general skill in the securing art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0003785 to Raven et al. in view of US 2009/0148101 to Lu et al.
Raven discloses in the abstract and figure 5, a male plug optical connector and a conversion adapter for mating the male plug with a dissimilar connector:
The male plug optical connector (5) comprising:
A ferrule (46; figure 2) comprising a plurality of bores to receive one or more optical fibers (see unlabeled center portion in figure 9);
A nosepiece (front section in figure 5) with a front and rear portion where the rear portion has at least one cantilevered arm (53) having a securing feature (recess 61) and a ferrule backstop (the ferrule stops based upon formed structural recesses and edges such as in figure 2 as well as a locking member 7). Multiple chambers that define pockets are shown in figure 9;
A connector housing (sub-adapter 5) comprising a longitudinal passageway and configured to receive the nosepiece (nosepiece fits within adapter body in figure 4); and
A one-piece adapter (3) comprising a passageway capable of receiving a portion of the connector housing of the male plug connector therein, the one piece adapter comprising a female keyway on an outer surface (41; figure 4); and
As to claim 2, there are two arms (53 on both sides in figure 5).
As to claim 3, a locking feature associated with the housing (7 or 49).
Claim 4 is a re-worded independent claim which combines the features of claims 1-2 above. The rejection follows the disclosed respective features.
As to claims 5 and 7, the connector housing is made to receive the two cantilevered arms and a pass through for the ferrule (figure 2).
Independent claim 6 is a combination of the above claims 4-5 and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
Independent claim 8 appears to be a combination of claims 1 and 6 above and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
As to claim 9, “subtractive” features are shown in figure 4 (51).
Independent claim 10 appears to be a combination of claims 6 and 9 above and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
As to claim 11, a ramp with ledge is shown (49; figure 5).
Independent claim 12 appears to be a combination of claims 10 and 11 above and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
As to claim 19, a plug is disclosed.
As to claim 38, a fiber cable made of an optical fiber is disclosed (abstract).
As to claim 41, the connection is non-round.
As to claim 44, a connector boot is disclosed (portion 21 in figure 1).
In many of the claims, there exists language pertaining to male and female portions. For purposes of examination, the male portions such as 5 are considered male portions that are inserted into a corresponding portion such as 11 in figure 3.
However, Raven fails to explicitly disclose a coupling nut portion. It is noted that coupling nuts to secure a fiber cable end to a connector are commonly known and used in the art.
As to claim 13, specific limitation in movement is not disclosed, however, this movement would appear to fall within manufacturing tolerances of the device.
Independent claim 14 appears to be a combination of claims 12 and 13 above and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
As to claim 15, the prior art does not disclose the specific location of the female key. However, rearrangement would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Independent claim 16 appears to be a combination of claims 14 and 15 above and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
Claim 17 relates to additional male keying features not disclosed in Raven.
Independent claim 18 appears to be a combination of claims 16 and 17 above and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
Independent claim 10 appears to be a combination of claims 18 and 19 above and as such is rejected on a respective similar basis.
As to claims 21-22, threaded portions are not disclosed but are related to the threaded coupling nut taught by Lu below.
Claims 23-28 and 30-37 relate to alignment or locking key structure which is not arranged as claimed but is disclosed in Lu below.
Claim 39 relates to adhesives which Raven does not disclose.
Claim 40 recites well known strength members in optical fibers but not explicitly disclosed by Raven.
Claim 42 recites commonly known heat shrinks used in the art but not disclosed by Raven.
Claim 43 recites a ferrule boot commonly known in the art but not disclosed by Raven.
Claim 45 recites a biasing spring commonly known in the art but not disclosed by Raven.
Claims 46-61 recite method features of the above structural claims to define the general assembly or use of the structure.
Lu discloses such a threaded portion (52; figure 1) for an associated coupling nut (36) and with a tapered seat for optimally interfacing with different adapters and connectors such as in Figure 81 (also see column 1, lines 38-61). Lu also discloses many locations and arrangements for locking tabs, protrusions and associated locking features (figures 10, 12, 20-22, 30-31 and 43-46).
As to claim 29, the missing o-ring claimed is disclosed (49).
As to claim 39, adhesives are disclosed in paragraph 193 to secure internal components.
As to claim 40, strength members are disclosed in paragraph 3 as standard in optical fibers of the art.
As to claim 42, heat shrink common in the art is disclosed in paragraph 192.
As to claim 43, a ferrule boot portion (32; figure 9) is disclosed.
As to claim 45, a spring (102) is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add threaded coupling nut portions with added supplementary features such as additional locking pockets, windows, arms, latches, adhesives and subsequent minor variants to a housing shape and the overall connector components as taught by Lu in Raven to secure the connector to an adapter.
Claims 46-61 recite method features of the above structural claims to define the general assembly or use of the structure. The use of anticipated structural features would therefore also be available to those having ordinary skill in the art.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights