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 November 20, 2025 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 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott et al. (U.S. Pat No. 5,436,994 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 1, Ott discloses a fiber optic connector (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a front connector body (12) having a front end and a rear end, the front end of the front connector body defining a connector plug portion, the front connector body defining an interior including a hub seat; a ferrule assembly including a ferrule (15) and a ferrule hub (14), the ferrule having a front end and a rear end, the ferrule defining a ferrule passage that extends axially through the ferrule between the front end and the rear end of the ferrule, the ferrule hub being mounted at the rear end of the ferrule, the ferrule hub having a front end and a rear end, the ferrule hub including a hub passage that extends axially through the ferrule hub between the front end and the rear end of the ferrule hub, the ferrule hub including a front spring stop (front end of spring 94 is abuts a stop portion of the ferrule hub 14) at an exterior of the ferrule hub at a location between the front and rear ends of the ferrule hub, the hub passage defining a hub passage cross-dimension; a rear connector body (13) secured at the rear end of the front connector body, the rear connector body including a front end and a rear end, the rear connector body including a rear connector body passage that extends axially through the rear connector body between the front end and the rear end of the rear connector body, the rear connector body including a rear spring stop (40); a spring (17) captured between the front and rear spring stops for biasing the ferrule assembly in a forward direction such that the front end of the ferrule hub is spring biased against the hub seat of the front connector body when the ferrule assembly is in a full forward position; a tube (16) having a front end and a rear end, the front end of the tube being mounted at the rear end of the ferrule hub, the tube defining a tube passage that extends axially through the tube between the front and rear ends of the tube, the tube extending within the rear connector body passage and within the spring, the tube passage including a tapered region (87) including a major end defining a major cross-dimension (larger rear end) and a minor end (smaller front end) defining a minor cross-dimension, the minor end being positioned forwardly with respect to the major end, the minor cross-dimension being smaller than the hub passage cross-dimension and the major cross-dimension being larger than the hub passage cross-dimension; an optical fiber (see abstract) that extends within the tube passage, the hub passage, and the ferrule passage; and bonding material (“epoxy” in Figs. 18-20) within the hub passage and the ferrule passage for securing the optical fiber within the hub passage and the ferrule passage.
Still regarding claim 1, Ott teaches the claimed invention except for the minor end of the tapered region of the tube passage positioned at the rear end of the ferrule hub. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to position the minor end of the tapered region of the tube passage at the rear end of the ferrule hub as a matter of obvious design choice in order to adjust the chamfer to facilitate insertion of the syringe needle.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the tube, and therefore is of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Thus a prior art product which possesses the claimed product characteristics can anticipate or render obvious the claim subject matter regardless of the manner in which it is fabricated. A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the status is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown and Saffer, 173 USPQ 685 and 688; In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 147. As such no weight is given to the process steps recited of injection molding in claims 2-3. Ott further discloses the wiper element which constitutes the tube made of a synthetic resinous material.
Regarding claim 4, Ott discloses the hub passage cross- dimension, the major cross-dimension, and the minor cross-dimension are passage diameters in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 5, Ott discloses the tapered region (87) of the tube passage has a truncated conical shape in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 8, Ott discloses the inner stop surface is defined by an annular shoulder that extends radially outwardly from the minor end of the tapered region of the tube passage in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ott teaches the claimed invention except for the front end of the tube mounts over the rear end of the ferrule hub. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have the front end of the tube mounted over and press-fit over the rear end of the ferrule hub in order to enhance attachment of the components.
Regarding claim 11, Ott discloses the bonding material includes epoxy in Figs. 18-20.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Ott teaches the claimed invention except for the fiber optic connector being an LC fiber optic connector. However, various types of connectors are well-known and commonly used in the art and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious for the connector to be an LC fiber optic connector or part of a duplex LC fiber optic connector in order to increase the versatility of the ferrule arrangement.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Ott teaches the claimed invention except for the rear end of the tube located at the rear end of the rear connector body. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the rear end of the tube located at the rear end of the rear connector body in order to facilitate the insertion of the syringe needle into the rear connector body. The rear end of the tube being located at the rear end of the rear connector body would naturally result in the tube extending through at least a majority of a length of the rear connector body passage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Ott does not teach the tube defining an inner stop surface within the tube passage that abuts against the rear end of the ferrule hub.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed November 20, 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 are persuasive, resulting in the claim containing allowable subject matter but objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim as detailed above.
On page 6, Applicant argues that it would not be a matter of obvious design choice to modify Ott for the minor end of the tapered region of the tube to be positioned at the rear end of the ferrule hub. However, Ott discloses the outer end 87 chamfered to assist in the insertion of a syringe needle, fiber and buffer (see column 4, lines 7-8). Positioning the chamfered portion directly at the rear end of the ferrule hub would facilitate insertion by reducing the length of the passage/bore 85. This would reduce the distance that the fiber needs to be inserted, and therefore expedite the insertion. Additionally, this reduces the overall length of the head portion 81, and a reduction in size is always desirable in the art of optical devices.
Ott does not disclose head portion 81 of the wiper element serving any particular purpose other than for containing the chamfered end (see column 4, lines 9-10 describing “[t]he head portion 81 is bounded by an outer surface 88 and an inner end surface 89 from which the chamfered end 87 of the bore 85 extends”). In other words, Ott does not discourage or dissuade one of ordinary skill from reducing the length of the head portion 81. Thus, one having ordinary skill would find it obvious to reduce the length of the head portion so that the minor end of the tapered region of the tube is positioned at the rear end of the ferrule hub for the aforementioned reasons.
On page 7, Applicant states that the chamfer or taper in Ott is used to assist in the insertion of a syringe rather than as an injection needle seat in the present application. However, “injection needle seat” does not appear in the claim 1. The MPEP has held that is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. While interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this instance, the term “injection needle seat” does not appear in the claim and thus arguments regarding such falls under importing limitations from the specification.
Further, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In other words, Ott’s fiber optic connector does not need to serve as an injection needle seat, which would be achieving the same advantage. Even though it has a different purpose, by virtue of having all of the claimed structural features, it represents a prima facie rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
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 February 25, 2026