DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election and amendment filed on August 12, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claim 7 has been amended to depend from independent claim 1. Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, is also amended.
Claims 1-23 are pending (claims 19-23 are “Withdrawn” as being related to a non-elected Group), with claims 1 and 16 in independent claim form.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 16-18, in the reply filed on August 12, 2026, is acknowledged. Further, and because Applicant has amended (original) independent claim 7 into dependent claim form, claims 7-15 are also joined with “Group I.” Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-18 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on September 19, 2024, June 5, 2024, and February 2, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (nine (9) pages) were received on December 20, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al. US 2016/0018606 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,448,370 B2).
Xue et al. US 2016/0018606 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0003], [0051] – [0058]; Claims) a fiber optic connector 600 for an optical fiber (as in Figs. 1-3; paragraphs [0051] – [0058]), the fiber optic connector comprising: a connector body 1 having a front end and a back end (Fig. 2, para [0051]; left is front and right is back in Figs.); a boot 4 having a rear portion extending beyond the back end of the connector body (to right in Figs. 1-3) wherein the boot is configured to move from a rearward position relative to the connector body to a forward position relative to the connector body (paras [0051] – [0052]); and an actuation element 6 / 7 received over at least the rear portion of the boot (Fig. 3, “detachable cover” part 6, with element 7 of the “fixation portion”), wherein the actuation element prevents the boot from moving from the rearward position to the forward position, and wherein the actuation element is removable from the boot to allow the boot to move from the rearward position to the forward position (see paras [0051], [0052], [0057], [0058]; the integration of 6 and 7 in Xue’s boot feature is capable of such functional language in the “wherein” clause), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of independent claim 16.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the actuation element (6 / 7) is received over at least part of the back end of the connector body and the rear portion of the boot (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, the actuation element includes a bottom side and defines a channel that is open on the bottom side to allow the actuation element to be received over at least the rear portion of the boot (see integration of 6 and 7 in Fig. 3; there is a “bottom side” and a “channel” in 6 / 7 in a BRI if Fig. 3 based on the frames-of-reference given the sides of the connector, and such feature 6 / 7 can be received “over” the boot’s rear portion).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho et al. WO 2020/055439 A1.
Ho et al. WO 2020/055439 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 24A-32B; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0220] - [0233]; Claims) a fiber optic connector 600 for an optical fiber (as in Figs 24A-32B; see paragraphs [0220] – [0233]), the fiber optic connector comprising: a connector body 2406 having a front end and a back end (Fig. 24F, note individual 150a in Fig. 24); a boot having a rear portion extending beyond the back end of the connector body (note expanded features to right in Figs. 24A, 29A-D showing the boot) wherein the boot is configured to move from a rearward position relative to the connector body to a forward position relative to the connector body (paras [0220] – [0233]); and an actuation element received over at least the rear portion of the boot (note expanded features to right in Figs. 24A, 29A-D, 32A and 32B showing the actuation element), wherein the actuation element prevents the boot from moving from the rearward position to the forward position, and wherein the actuation element is removable from the boot to allow the boot to move from the rearward position to the forward position (see paras [0220] - [0233], the integration of the “boot” and “actuation element” in Ho’s boot feature is capable of such functional language in the “wherein” clause), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of independent claim 16.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the actuation element is received over at least part of the back end of the connector body and the rear portion of the boot (Figs 24A-24F of Ho; also Figs. 32A and 32B).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. US 2016/0018606 A1, and further in view of Borer et al. US 2021/0405304 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Xue et al. US 2016/0018606 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0003], [0051] – [0058]; Claims) a fiber optic connector 600 for an optical fiber (as in Figs. 1-3; paragraphs [0051] – [0058]), the fiber optic connector comprising: a connector body 1 having a front end and a back end (Fig. 2, para [0051]; left is front and right is back in Figs.); a boot 4 having a rear portion extending beyond the back end of the connector body (to right in Figs. 1-3) wherein the boot is configured to move from a rearward position relative to the connector body to a forward position relative to the connector body (paras [0051] – [0052]); and an actuation element 6 / 7 received over at least the rear portion of the boot (Fig. 3, “detachable cover” part 6, with element 7 of the “fixation portion”), wherein the actuation element prevents the boot from moving from the rearward position to the forward position, and wherein the actuation element is removable from the boot to allow the boot to move from the rearward position to the forward position (see paras [0051], [0052], [0057], [0058]; the integration of 6 and 7 in Xue’s boot feature is capable of such functional language in the “wherein” clause).
Regarding independent claim 1, Xue ‘606 does not expressly and exactly teach the specifics of having a “sleeve” at least partially positioned within the connector feature, in that the optical fiber is received therein and such sleeve includes at least “one clamping member” with applies force to keep the optical fiber within the sleeve upon actuation. However, using sleeves in optical fiber connectors to maintain the optical fiber in a certain placement / location by clamping force is commonly used in the art and known in connectors.
For example, Borer ‘304 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-6; paragraph [0010], [0034], [0037] – [0046]; Claims) common connector arrangements in which sleeves to clamp optical fibers inside a connector are used, to allow the optical fiber to be securely located in place (para [0010], [0044]). Additionally, Borer teaches other features of the fiber optic connector using similar designs of the boot to Applicant’s inventive concept and gist (note that even though Borer is from the same Assignee as the current application, this “Prior Art” reference was published at least as early as December 30, 2021). Note Borer’s Figs. 1-6 for design and integration of mechanical splicing.
Since Xue and Borer are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Borer would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Xue.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Borer, to use a clamping sleeve inside the optical connector body feature, in order to securely hold an internal optical fiber at a predictable and robust location, into the base design of the optical fiber connector of Xue, to allow for improved security and stability of the overall fiber connector, as in use for a mechanical splice. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having a “sleeve” for “clamping” in the design“ of Xue. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Xue and further in view of Borer (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding further dependent claims 2-15, the features of COMBO, either using Xue and/or Borer’s teachings themselves, makes obvious the overall features of the dependent claims. KSR. The hypothetical combination of COMBO must be considered, while any further claimed structure in dependent form is outlined by Borer’s boot type and stub fiber with mechanical splice (or Xue). One having ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing of the current application would have recognized such implementation of design in the dependent claims 2-15 viewing COMBO.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. WO 2020/055439 A1, and further in view of Borer et al. US 2021/0405304 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ho et al. WO 2020/055439 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 24A-32B; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0220] - [0233]; Claims) a fiber optic connector 600 for an optical fiber (as in Figs 24A-32B; see paragraphs [0220] – [0233]), the fiber optic connector comprising: a connector body 2406 having a front end and a back end (Fig. 24F, note individual 150a in Fig. 24); a boot having a rear portion extending beyond the back end of the connector body (note expanded features to right in Figs. 24A, 29A-D showing the boot) wherein the boot is configured to move from a rearward position relative to the connector body to a forward position relative to the connector body (paras [0220] – [0233]); and an actuation element received over at least the rear portion of the boot (note expanded features to right in Figs. 24A, 29A-D, 32A and 32B showing the actuation element), wherein the actuation element prevents the boot from moving from the rearward position to the forward position, and wherein the actuation element is removable from the boot to allow the boot to move from the rearward position to the forward position (see paras [0220] - [0233], the integration of the “boot” and “actuation element” in Ho’s boot feature is capable of such functional language in the “wherein” clause).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ho WO ‘439 does not expressly and exactly teach the specifics of having a “sleeve” at least partially positioned within the connector feature, in that the optical fiber is received therein and such sleeve includes at least “one clamping member” with applies force to keep the optical fiber within the sleeve upon actuation. However, using sleeves in optical fiber connectors to maintain the optical fiber in a certain placement / location by clamping force is commonly used in the art and known in connectors.
For example, Borer ‘304 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-6; paragraph [0010], [0034], [0037] – [0046]; Claims) common connector arrangements in which sleeves to clamp optical fibers inside a connector are used, to allow the optical fiber to be securely located in place (para [0010], [0044]). Additionally, Borer teaches other features of the fiber optic connector using similar designs of the boot to Applicant’s inventive concept and gist (note that even though Borer is from the same Assignee as the current application, this “Prior Art” reference was published at least as early as December 30, 2021). Note Borer’s Figs. 1-6 for design and integration of mechanical splicing.
Since Ho and Borer are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Borer would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Ho.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Borer, to use a clamping sleeve inside the optical connector body feature, in order to securely hold an internal optical fiber at a predictable and robust location, into the base design of the optical fiber connector of Ho, to allow for improved security and stability of the overall fiber connector, as in use for a mechanical splice. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having a “sleeve” for “clamping” in the design“ of Ho. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Ho and further in view of Borer (henceforth “COMBO2”).
Regarding further dependent claims 2-15, the features of COMBO2, either using Ho and/or Borer’s teachings themselves, makes obvious the overall features of the dependent claims. KSR. The hypothetical combination of COMBO2 must be considered, while any further claimed structure in dependent form is outlined by Borer’s boot type and stub fiber with mechanical splice (or Ho). One having ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing of the current application would have recognized such implementation of design in the dependent claims 2-15 viewing COMBO2.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B-F, which pertain to the state of the art of optical fiber connectors that incorporate actuation features to a boot for connectivity in order to maintain secure positioning of the cable sub-elements. PTO-892 reference A is the patent publication of the Xue ‘606 PG Publication used above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights