DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 10 February 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, 5, 6, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0205823 to Luther et al.
In regards to claims 1, 5 and 13, Luther recites a combination of a fiber optic ferrule and a fiber optic ferrule holder (Figures 1-8) comprising: a fiber optic ferrule (18) including a pair of guide pins (24) movable between a non-mating position and a mating position via a spring mechanism (20), the fiber optic ferrule (Figures 3 & 4) including a top cut-out (28) on a top portion and a bottom cut-out (28) on a bottom portion of the fiber optic ferrule [0027], each of the top cut-out and the bottom cut-out having with a ferrule stop surface (30) associated therewith; a ferrule holder (12 & 16 together) having a body with a first side, a second side opposite the first side, a top side, and a bottom side opposite the top side, a central opening in the body defined at least in part by the first side, the second side, the top side, and the bottom side; and a first holder extension (Figure 7; 14) extending longitudinally and forward of the first side and a second holder extension (Figure 7; 14) extending longitudinally and forward of the second side, each of the first holder extension and the second holder extension including a rear stop surface configured to engage a respective ferrule stop surface on the fiber optic ferrule. Luther further recites the ferrule holder includes a fiber slot through which a plurality of optical fibers are disposed within the central opening.
In regards to claim 6, Luther recites the plurality of optical fibers are in the form of an optical fiber ribbon.
In regards to claims 10 and 15, Luther recites each of the first holder extension and the second holder extensions further comprises a head portion having the rear stop surface, wherein the head portion of each the first holder extension and the second holder extension functions to align the fiber optic ferrule with a receptacle. (Figure 10)
In regards to claim 11, Luther recites the fiber optic ferrule includes a pair of guide-pin bores to longitudinally receive respective ones of the pair of guide pins, a front end of each guide pin in the pair of guide pins partially extending outward and away from an end face of the fiber optic ferrule in an unmated state of the fiber optic ferrule, and wherein the front end extends further outward from the end face in a mated state of the fiber optic ferrule inside the receptacle than in the unmated state of the fiber optic ferrule.
In regards to claim 12, Luther recites the spring mechanism is under a maximum compression when in the mated state and is under a partial compression in the unmated state, the partial compression being less than the maximum compression. (Figure 10)
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0205823 to Luther et al as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 4, although Luther does not expressly recite the fiber optic ferrules are miniature MT ferrules, forming optical ferrules in a smaller size, such as miniature MT ferrules would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Forming optical ferrules in a miniature size is advantageous in the optical art in order to provide a more compact device. Since a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary 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 the fiber optic ferrules to be a miniature MT ferrule.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0205823 to Luther et al as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0377138 to Wong et al.
In regards to claim 7, Luther recites a spring mechanism (20) is formed by a spring. But Luther fails to expressly recite the spring is formed around each of the guide pins, each of the springs being positioned rearward of the fiber optic ferrules. However, Wong teaches an optical fiber ferrule and ferrule combination having a dual springs having a main spring (106), similar to the spring disclosed by Luther, and an additional set of springs (Figure 8; 806a & 806b) formed around each guide pin (815a & 815b), each of the springs being positioned rearward of the fiber optic ferrule. Luther further recites the additional set of springs to provide further securement of the optical components and placing the set of springs around the guide pins reduces the rattling of the springs and therefore decrease connector failure during use. [0027] Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the spring is formed around each of the guide pins, each of the springs being positioned rearward of the fiber optic ferrules.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0205823 to Luther et al as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0175000 to Caracci et al.
In regards to claim 8, Luther fails to expressly recite the fiber optic ferrule has an end face that is angled polished. However, optical ferrules having an endface with an angle is well known in the optical art. This is further evidenced by Caracci. Caracci recites polishing the endface of an optical ferrule at an angle to reduce back reflection of light. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fiber optic ferrule having an end face that is angled polished.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9 and 14 are 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.
In regards to claims 2 and 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a pair of guide pin stops within the central opening and engageable with a rear portion of the guide pins of the fiber optic ferrule in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 3, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the spring mechanism is under greater compression when the rear stop surfaces of the holder extensions are forward of the ferrule stop surfaces on the fiber optic ferrule than when the rear stop surfaces of the holder extensions are engaged with the ferrule stop surfaces in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the guide pins move relative to the fiber optic ferrule during insertion and removal of the fiber optic ferrule from a receptacle in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-8, 10-13 and 15 filed 10 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Luther fails to recite “a pair of guide pins movable between a mating and non-mating position via a spring mechanism.” However, the quoted limitation is only a portion of the claim language. The claim language recites “a fiber optic ferrule including a pair of guide pins movable between a non-mating position and a mating position via a spring mechanism.” The full claim limitation does not require the guide pins to perform the mating and non-mating functions. As the claim language reads, the fiber optic ferrule includes a pair of guide pins and the fiber optic ferrule is movable between the non-mating and mating position. Luther clearly teaches both of these limitations.
Applicant further argues Luther fails to teach “a ferrule holder that includes a fiber slot through which a plurality of optical fibers are dispersed within the central opening.” However, the Examiner disagrees. Luther clearly shows in Figure 5 a central slot in element 16, the fibers extend through the central slow, between elements 14 and into the ferrule.
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 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