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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) received 14 January 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would not have been motivated to combine U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0049668 to Yakabe et al. (hereinafter “US1”) and US Patent Application Publication 2022/0075120 to Hirabayashi et al. (hereinafter “US2”) as set forth in the Office Action mailed 16 October 2026 (see the rejection of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in paragraphs 7-19).
Applicant argues that US1 describes using a spacer to achieve a non-contact optical connection and, therefore, a PHOSITA would only be motivated to use the described spacer of US1 (see Request at pages 1-2).
Applicant further argues that because US2 describes the use of spacers and films separately, but not in combination, it would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA to alter US1 based on US2 to include both a spacer and protective film in the same embodiment (see Request at page 2).
US2 describes the use of a protective film (31/34 or 32, note that elements 31 and 34 are formed of the same material at the same time) on the ferrule and fiber end face when a gap between the fiber end faces exists (see Figs 6-9). US2 relies on a recessed fiber tip in a ferrule extension to form said gap (see Figs 6-9).
US1 uses a spacer to form a gap between fiber end faces (see Figs 1-4) that is similar to the gap formed by the recessed faces of US2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use the protective film (31/34 and/or 32) formed on the fiber tip and gap-forming ferrule extension of US2 on the fiber tip and spacer of US1.
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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0049668 to Yakabe et al. (hereinafter “US1”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0075120 to Hirabayashi et al. (hereinafter “US2”).
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical connector (2A, see Figs 1-2 and 6) comprising:
at least one optical fiber (20a, 20b);
a ferrule (10A) including a ferrule end surface and configured to hold the optical fiber to expose a tip surface of the optical fiber at the ferrule end surface (at 13); and
a spacer (12) provided on the ferrule end surface and surrounding an exposed region where the tip surface of the optical fiber is exposed in the ferrule end surface (see Fig 12).
US1 does not describe a protective film.
US2 describes an optical connector (see Fig 4) comprising:
at least one optical fiber (22);
a ferrule (23) including a ferrule end surface and configured to hold the optical fiber to expose a tip surface of the optical fiber at the ferrule end surface; and
a protective film (31) deposited over the entirety of the fiber and ferrule end faces (see Figs 4-5 and [0036]-[0037]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the protective film of US2 at the end face of the fiber and ferrule of the connector of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent degradation to the end faces of the optical fibers (see US2 at [0036]). The application of the protective film as described by US2 would cover the entirety of the end faces of the fibers and ferrule of the optical connector. Such an arrangement would result in the protective film provided to cover the tip surface of the optical fiber and cover at least a part of a boundary between the exposed region of the ferrule end surface and a surface of the spacer when the protective film is viewed from a direction orthogonal to the ferrule end surface
Regarding Claim 2-3, US1 describes a pair of guide holes (11h, 11g) provided in the ferrule end surface and configured to receive insertion of guide pins (21a, 21b). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the connector in view of US1 and US2 such that the protective film is provided in a region excluding the guide holes and between the guide holes. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the protective film did not interfere with insertion of the alignment pin into the guide hole while still providing protection to the fiber end faces.
Regarding Claim 4, US2 describes the protective film as an antireflection film (see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 and US2 are silent as to the hardnesses of the protective film and spacer. Both US1 and US2 describe that various materials may be used for the film or spacer (see US1 at [0035] and US2 at [0036] and [0044]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the connector in view of US1 and US2 having a hardness of the protective film that is higher than a hardness of the spacer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 6, US1 describes the thickness of the spacer as between 5 mm and 100 mm (see [0037]). US2 describes the thickness of the film as 2 mm or less (see [0036]-[0037]). The use of these thickness would result in the combined connector in view of US1 and US2 having a thickness of the protective film 1/4 times or less of a thickness of the spacer.
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes:
the spacer having a frame shape including a first long side and a second long side opposing each other (see Figs 2, 6),
the at least one optical fiber as a plurality of optical fibers (see [0033]), and
tip surfaces of the plurality of optical fibers exposed in the exposed region of the ferrule (at 13) end surface between the first long side and the second long side (see Figs 2, 6).
US2 describes the protective film provided to cover the entire end faces of the fibers and ferrule (see Fig 4). The application of the protective film as described by US2 would result in the protective film provided to cover the first long side, the tip surfaces of the plurality of optical fibers, and the second long side.
Claim 8 describes a method substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected in view of US1 and US2 for substantially the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 9, US1 describes an optical connection structure (see Fig 3) comprising:
a first optical connector (2A); and
a second optical connector (2B) connected to the first optical connector,
wherein the first optical connector and the second optical connector are connected to oppose each other to sandwich the spacer (see Fig 3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights