DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 29 January 2026.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0324628 to Ye.
In regards to claim 1, Ye recites an adapter assembly (10; Figure 2) for use in an extender port for coupling a first fiber optic connector and a second fiber optic connector, the adapter assembly comprising: an adapter comprising an adapter body (30) defining: a first passageway (13) for receiving the first fiber optic connector and a second passageway (15) for receiving the second fiber optic connector [0043]; and an integrated sleeve holder (32) positioned between the first passageway and the second passageway of the adapter [0044-0045]; a sleeve holder insert (42) disposed within the second passageway of the adapter body and adjacent to the integrated sleeve holder; and a sleeve (44) disposed within a passageway formed by the integrated sleeve holder and the sleeve holder insert [0048].
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, 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0324628 to Ye as applied to claim 1 and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20202/0057222 to Dannoux et al.
In regards to claim 3, Ye recites the adapter comprises a first circumferential groove at a first end and a second circumferential groove at a second end (at sleeve openings 244; shown in Figures 5, 5A & 5B). But Ye fails to expressly recite a first O-ring within the first circumferential groove, and a second O-ring in the second circumferential groove. However, Dannoux also teaches an optical adapter assembly comprising passageways for optical fiber connectors, a sleeve insert and sleeve for aligning the optical connectors. Dannoux further teaches the inclusion of O-rings in the grooves of the housing for the purpose of sealing and weatherproofing the internal components of the device. [0076] Since Ye and Dannoux are both from the same field of endeavor and Dannoux further teaches the optical inclusion of O-rings for the purpose of sealing and weatherproofing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the device of Ye to include a first O-ring within the first circumferential groove, and a second O-ring in the second circumferential groove.
Claim(s) 4and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0324628 to Ye as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, although Ye does not expressly recite the adapter comprises a plurality of radial fins, Applicant discloses the radial fins to be used to mate the optical components of the adapter assembly. Ye recites guiding portions of the first housing inserted into recesses/insertion portion of the second housing and locking portions of the first housing inserted into locking portions of the second housing to mate the optical components of the adapter assembly. Since Ye teaches elements used to mate the optical components of the adapter assembly and the elements provide the same functionality as the radial fins, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen any mating elements capable of securing the optical components of the adapter assembly such as radial fins or the elements disclosed by Ye as a matter of obvious design choice.
In regards to claim 5, Ye recites each of a first end and a second end of the adapter comprises an alignment protrusion (see Figures 2 and 4; interior walls, perimeter walls). Although Ye does not expressly recite the alignment protrusion to be operable to be disposed within an alignment notch of a push-button securing member, the alignment protrusion must inherently be provided within an alignment notch in order to provide the securement and necessary alignment as part of the desired functionality. Furthermore, the recitation that the alignment protrusion is operable to be disposed within an alignment notch of a push-button securing member is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138 Since the alignment protrusion of Ye would necessarily be disposed in an alignment notch and since the operation of the notch is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the device of Ye to have included an alignment protrusion operable to be disposed within an alignment notch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the sleeve holder insert comprises at least one flexible extension; an interior surface of the second passageway of the adapter comprises a groove; and the at least one flexible extension is disposed within the groove to secure the sleeve holder insert within the adapter in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim.
Claims 6-32 are allowed for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action mailed 29 October 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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