DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 March 2026 has been 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 (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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,629,584 to Zhong et al.
In regards to claims 1 and 8, Zhong recites an expanded beam fiber optic connector and its associated method comprising: an insert (200) comprising one or more cylindrical insert bores (201), each insert bore having an insert bore diameter along a length of the insert bore; a sleeve (110) disposed in each insert bore, the sleeve having a sleeve outer diameter, the sleeve further comprising a cylindrical sleeve bore having a sleeve bore diameter; wherein each sleeve bore is configured to receive a ferrule (120), in use, each ferrule having a ferrule outer diameter, wherein the ferrule outer diameter is smaller than the sleeve bore diameter; and a lens (150) disposed in each insert bore, each lens having a lens outer diameter substantially the same as the sleeve outer diameter, wherein each lens abuts an end (112) of a respective sleeve (110). But Zhong does not expressly recite each sleeve and each lens is held in a press fit engagement with the insert bore. However, Figures 1 and 4 of Zhong clearly show a secure abutment of the components and further includes a centering nut (24) fitted to the end portion (112) of the sleeve (110) and screwed together with the insert bores (201). (Column 4, Lines 15-20) Since Zhong depicts a secure abutment, is silent in regards to an engagement method, and further since the combination of the centering nut and lens abutting an end of the respective sleeve providing a secure engagement, and Zhong additionally teaches a spring to push/press against the optical lens, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided each sleeve and each lens to be held in a press fit engagement.
In regards to claim 2, Zhong recites wherein, in use, each ferrule abuts a respective lens.
In regards to claims 3 and 9, although Zhong does not expressly recite each sleeve comprises ceramic, ceramic is a commonly chosen material for sleeves in optical devices. Ceramic sleeves are advantageous for their physical properties, such as corrosion and chemical resistances and high strength. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for each sleeve to comprise ceramic.
In regards to claims 4 and 10, although Zhong does not expressly recite the insert comprises brass, brass is a commonly chosen material for inserts. Brass inserts are advantageous for their physical properties such as durability in harsh environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the insert comprising brass.
In regards to claims 5 and 10, Zhong recites the sleeve bore diameter is configured to provide a close clearance fit between each sleeve and respective ferrule, in use.
In regards to claims 6 and 12, Zhong recites a removable rear plate (130) affixed to the insert; and a spring (180) for each insert bore; wherein, in use, each spring is arranged between the rear plate and the respective ferrule, and surrounding a respective ferrule back end, to provide a force that urges the ferrule towards the lens.
In regards to claims 7 and 13, although Zhong does not expressly recite a refractive index of each lens is at least 1.85 at a wavelength of 850 nm, Zhong does teach the lens to be a spherical lens for the purpose of expanding the light beam. Since Zhong teaches the lens to provide the same purpose as Applicant and further since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges or values through routine experimentation when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art and discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a refractive index of each lens is at least 1.85 at a wavelength of 850 nm. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are allowed. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a cable management system for an expanded beam fiber optic connector, the cable management system comprising: an inner housing having a bore and in inner surface, a portion of the inner surface having a first engagement surface; an outer housing, the outer housing comprising a front portion and a removable rear portion; an insert housed in the inner housing, the insert being configured, in use, to hold a termination of one or more optical fibers of an optical fiber cable; and an inner crimp configured, in use, to grip an outer jacket of the optical fiber cable; wherein an outer surface of the inner crimp comprises a second engagement surface configured, in use, to engage with the first engagement surface for preventing rotation of the inner housing relative to the optical fiber cable; wherein the first engagement surface defines a cavity having a polygonal cross section in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the inner housing; and wherein the second engagement surface defines a portion of the inner crimp having a correspondingly-shaped polygonal cross section in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the inner crimp in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim. The unique polygonal cross sections of the inner crimp with the inner housing nesting together provides the functional advantage of twist prevent during maintenance and field inspection of the fiber and therefore protecting the integrity of the optical fiber. Furthermore, see Applicant’s Remarks received 12 November 2025, page 9.
Two prior arts of record discussing polygonal shapes are U.S. Patent 5,253,315 to Fentress and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0056562 to Limbert et al. Fentress teaches the crimp ring to be a polygon shape for the purpose of aiding strength members to be looped back over the outside of the cable. Limbert teaches a crimp ring to be located inside of around a hexagonal profile. Although both Fentress and Limbert teach rotation prevention, neither Fentress or Limbert teach two optical elements nested together in a polygonal shape to prevent rotation. Both Fentress and Limbert teach a single polygonal shape for an alternative purpose. Instead, Fentress and Limbert both teach a latch or clip to prevent rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues claim 1 has been amended to recite “the lens is held against the sleeve.” However, this argument does not reflect the claim language. The claim states the lens abuts an end of a respective sleeve and does not require the lens to be held against the sleeve. As stated in the rejection above, the sleeve is element 110 and element 112 is the end portion of the sleeve. The lens can be clearly seen as abutting an end of a respective sleeve as seen in Figures 1, 3 and 4 of Zhong. By definition, the term “abut” means to “adjoin, touch, or border on (something) at one end”. ("Collins English Dictionary — Complete & Unabridged" 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 Zhong clearly shows the lens (150) to abut an end (112) of a respective sleeve (110).
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 TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights