DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on November 18, 2025. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 remain pending, with claims 1, 8, and 15 in independent 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 1, in the amended phrase (dated November 18, 2025), the claim as a whole may read more smoothly if “an outer footprint of the main body is smaller at the first end than at the second end” is updated to read “an outer footprint of the main body is smaller at a first end of the main body than at a second end of the main body,” because this the first chronological drafting of the “first end” and “second end” terms of the main body. Secondarily, in the “main opening extending” section, the term “a first end” and “a second end” (of the main body) may then be claimed as “the first end” and “the second end” (of the main body). Alternatively in claim 1, the section starting with “main opening extending” may be placed before the amended features from November 18, 2025. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 are also objected to at least as being in dependent form. The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is their own lexicographer if these features should remain in the ordering as amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15 is rejected herein, while claim 16 is rejected at least as being in dependent claim form.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first end” and “the second end” in the amended feature of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The terms “first end” and “second end” have not yet been defined by this claim (such as “a first (second) end of the hybrid adapter”) and it is unclear from this phrasing which element’s “first” / “second” end(s) are being referred thereto. Applicant may consider adding a sentence defining these terms akin to independent claims 1 and/or 8. For these reasons, claim 15, and dependent claim 16, lack proper antecedent basis under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morishima US 2021/0033802 A1.
Morishima US 2021/0033802 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 6 and 8; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0068] – [0074], Second Embodiment) a mated pair of multi-fiber ferrules (4a is optically mated to 6, see Figs. 6-8) forming an optical connection, comprising: a first multi-fiber ferrule 4a having a first end-face with a first area and a first plurality of optical fibers 21 / 2 being terminated at the first end-face; and a second multi-fiber ferrule 6 having a second end-face with a second area and a second plurality of optical fibers 7 / 72 being terminated at the second end-face, wherein the first area is different from the second area (the first ferrule 4a has an end-face smaller than the second ferrule end face 6 in at least width dimension; see Fig. 6), and wherein in a mated configuration inside a hybrid adapter 3 (mated / optically connected configuration shown in Fig. 8 of Morishima; features are inside the adapter formation, parts of 4a are inside feature 8 of 3; parts of 6 are inside 37 of 3), the hybrid adapter having an outer footprint that is smaller at the first end than at the second end (at the “first end” of element 3, the top is smaller and thus a smaller “footprint” than the bottom portion(s) of element 3; see Fig. 6), the first multi-fiber ferrule and the second multi-fiber ferrule engage each other (at least optically but also structurally through features 35 / 37 / and 51) at the first end face and the second end face to form an optical connection between the first plurality of optical fibers 21 and the second plurality of optical fibers 7 (optical engagement at least through features 51 in Fig. 6), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed. Note also that other than the minor informality to claim 1 listed above (“Claim Objections”), claims 1-7 are otherwise allowable over the closest prior art found in the current record. Claims 8 (and 1) were amended into condition for allowance over the closest prior art in the paper filed on November 18, 2025.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record (Morishima US ‘802; Takano WO ‘024; Shikama WO ‘589; Lewallen US ‘672; Sabo US ‘070; Lampert US ‘837; Kon US ‘265; Baca US ‘868; Jong US ‘253) does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest, in combination, each amended claim feature as a whole with all originally filed features of claims 1 and/or 8. In particular, none of the prior art teaches such a combined adapter for mating two dissimilar multi-fiber ferrules with each and every limitation as found. Most notably as non-limiting examples of the dissimilar optical ferrule connections are VSFF (TMT) to MPO/MPT (MT) ferrules, with Applicant’s dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 16. This context must be considered by the Examiner. For these reasons, the Examiner is unable to present an anticipation rejection (under 35 U.S.C. 102) or a prima facie case of obviousness (under 35 U.S.C. 103) for amended claims 1/8. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also allowable over the prior art at least as being in dependent claim form.
Regarding some of the closest prior art:
-Lampert US ‘837 teaches an adapter for mating two dissimilar fiber ferrules, with a main body having two different sized openings, and an outer footprint of the adapter is smaller at a first end in comparison to a second end. However, Lampert does not teach or suggest mating two dissimilar multi-fiber ferrules. Lampert was published at least as early as August 26, 2003. The fact that no similar multi-fiber ferrule mating adapter (to Lampert’s single fiber ferrule design; LC, SC) has been derived since this date is persuasive that evolving from a single fiber ferrule adapter to multi-fiber ferrule adapter was/is not obvious. Additionally, it is known in the art that connecting dissimilar multi-fiber ferrules, other than with special hybrid connectors, fiber converter patch cords, or splicing, is very difficult, and typically has unacceptable loss and degraded accuracy.
-Jong US ‘253 teaches (Figs. 1, 3, 11; paras [0035] – [0038]) an adapter that can connect dissimilar optical connectors to a multi-fiber ferrule 14. However, noting para [0038], there is no express teaching that a dissimilar ferrule connection is formed, and the connectors (to the ferrule 14) are from the examples of MPO/MTP, mini MPO, MTRJ, and MPX, none of which can be considered dissimilar to the MT ferrule of 14.
-Lewallen US ‘672 teaches an adapter for connecting an MTP adapter with either MT / MTP ferrule, and also CON2R-MT (Figs. 8A, 8B, 9; para [0040]). However, these base ferrules are not dissimilar in view of the context of the current application (paras [0002] – [0003]).
-Takano WO ‘024 and Shikama WO ‘589: These prior art references were applied (see the non-final rejection mailed on July 18, 2025) and obviated at least by the amendments to the claims 1, 8, and 15 (as dated November 18, 2025).
Dependent claim 16 is rejected based on a rejected independent claim 15 (both under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102). However, there is no prior art found in the current record that makes such express language, in which the first multi-fiber ferrule is “a TMT ferrule” while the second multi-fiber ferrule is “an MT ferrule within a housing.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment with remarks (pages 1-3 of the “REMARKS”), filed November 18, 2025, with respect to the amendments to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 in view of the Takano WO ‘024 and Shikama WO ‘589 prior art references (see the non-final rejection mailed on July 18, 2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Based on those amendments and arguments presented, those prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
However, based on further search and consideration of the claims 1-16, in the context of such amended features in view of the original specification and drawings, the Examiner has applied Morishima US ‘802 as an anticipatory prior art reference to independent claim 15. This office action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B-E, which pertain to the state of the art of optically connecting different and/or dissimilar ferrules/connectors with a structural housing / adapter.
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.
If Applicant is aware of prior art pertinent to the optical mating / connection of dissimilar ferrules together inside an adapter, such as MT / MPO / MTP to (VSFF / TMT), such prior art should be cited in an IDS in reply to this office action.
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 February 9, 2026