DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on November 28, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1 and 19 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 16, 2025, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (four (4) pages) were received on November 28, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding independent claims 1 / 19, the term “hollow terminating member” should be consistently claimed and not shortened to “terminating member.” All instances of “terminating member” should be updated to “hollow terminating member”, see claims 1 /19 (two instances in each independent claim), dependent claims 2-8, 11, 13, 15, and 16 (some of these claims have multiple instances missing “hollow”). Claims 2-18 and 20 are objected to at least as including these features of claims 1 and 19, respectively.
Noting dependent claims 2-18 and 20, these claims should begin with “The terminator” (or “The kit”, claim 20) instead of “A terminator” (or “A kit”, claim 20) because such terminology is already defined by claims 1 / 19 and should be claimed using “the / said” identifying features. Regarding dependent claims 9 and 20, the use of “will reduce” (twice) and “will seal” is awkward and should be replaced with other functional terms (such as “reduces” or “seals”) without language of “will” to identify the desired feature(s). Using “will” language implies that such feature(s) may (or may not necessarily) occur in a claim. Regarding dependent claims 10 and 17, the phrases “can be reduced” and “may be increased” are similar conditional (“if”) language that should be replaced with positive claim terms. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf DE 3401047 A1.
Wolf DE 3401047 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-2; corresponding text, in particular pages 2-3; Claims) a terminator (overall as in Figs. 1-2) for an optical fibre cable including at least one microstructured optical fibre (ABS: for “capping of an optical fibre cable or coaxial cable”; which implies at least one optical fiber is found therein, meeting all structure of “microstructure”), the terminator comprising: a hollow terminating member (hollow / negative space shown in Fig. 1 inside the structure of 2 / 3 within the overall design of element 1) with a closed end (top of Figs.) and an opposite open end (bottom of Figs. is open to receive the cable) configured for cooperation with a severed end of an optical fibre cable (cable sheath at 9 with internal components such as optical fiber(s); cable structure is severed / ended in Wolf); and a tubular collar 8 having a first end into which the open end of the hollow terminating member is received in a sealed manner, and an opposite second end to receive the severed end of the optical fibre cable for cooperation with the open end of the terminating member, the second end having an internal diameter which is reducible to seal the tubular collar around the optical fibre cable (see how the bottom portion of 8 has a reduced diameter as the sealing occurs (near reference no. 10 in Fig. 1), the feature sealing the tubular collar at a smaller diameter is comparison to the top-most features of the hollow terminator member being wider, “pressing tension” and “shrink sleeve”: ABS), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the open end of the hollow terminating member engages with the input fiber/cable (Wolf Figs. 1-2), which meets all structure.
Regarding claim 3, the open end of the hollow terminating member engages with the input fiber/cable (Figs. 1-2) when the cable is inserted thereinto, which meets all structure of this claim.
Regarding claims 4-5, when the cable is inserted to the hollow member, it does not go all the way to the end of the terminating member (is “spaced apart”), thus all structure and function is met is a reasonable frame of reference.
Regarding claim 6, the open end of the terminating member (at least in Figs. 1-2) is not smaller than the cable outer diameter (of cable at 9 / 10), which meets all structure and is capable of all function.
Regarding claim 18, the input cable has an ended feature, which meets the structure of severed end (does not matter how the cable end, it ends, and is sealed), and all structure of claim 18 is thus met by the device of Wolf Figs. 1-2.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walter Rose DE 3624514 A1.
Walter Rose DE 3624514 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-6; corresponding text, in particular English translation pgs. 1-4 (attached in PTO-892); Claims) a terminator (overall as in Figs. 1, 3, 5, etc.) for an optical fibre cable 2 including at least one microstructured optical fibre (Description, cable sheath of 2 includes internal fiber optic elements, meeting all structure of “microstructure”), the terminator comprising: a hollow terminating member (hollow / negative space shown in Fig. 1 and formed at Figs. 2-3 inside the structure of 4 / 5 within the overall design of the device) with a closed end right of Figs. at 5) and an opposite open end (left of Figs. is open to receive the cable sheath 2) configured for cooperation with a severed end of an optical fibre cable (cable sheath at 2 with internal components such as optical fiber(s); cable structure is severed / ended in Walter Rose); and a tubular collar 3 / 10 (Figs. 1 and 5) having a first end into which the open end of the hollow terminating member is received in a sealed manner, and an opposite second end to receive the severed end of the optical fibre cable for cooperation with the open end of the terminating member, the second end having an internal diameter which is reducible to seal the tubular collar around the optical fibre cable (see how the bottom portion of 3 / 10 is resistant based on shrinking tension and forces, Title, ABS; and 3 / 10 will thus have a reduced diameter as the sealing occurs (near the open end by 3 and 2 in Figs. 1-6), pgs. 1-4 translation), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the open end of the hollow terminating member engages with the input fiber/cable (Figs.), which meets all structure.
Regarding claim 3, the open end of the hollow terminating member engages with the input fiber/cable (Figs.) when the cable is inserted thereinto, which meets all structure of this claim.
Regarding claims 4-5, when the cable is inserted to the hollow member, it does not go all the way to the end of the terminating member (is “spaced apart”), thus all structure and function is met is a reasonable frame of reference.
Regarding claim 6, the open end of the terminating member (at least in Figs. 2-3 of Walter Rose) is not smaller than the cable outer diameter (of 2), which meets all structure and is capable of all function.
Regarding claims 9-10, Walter Rose teaches both heat shrinking properties (that would inherently reduce/seal) around the fiber cable 2, as well as be reduced by a “mechanical adjustment” of features in the shrinking, which meets all structure of 9-10, noting the English translation of Walter Rose.
Regarding claim 11, the terminating member is formed of plastic (translation) which is a polymer material in this context, and it can be considered unitary and functions as a unit, which meets all structure (claim 1 Walter Rose).
Regarding claim 18, the input cable has an ended feature, which meets the structure of severed end (does not matter how the cable end, it ends, and is sealed), and all structure of claim 18 is thus met by the device of Walter Rose Figs. 1-6.
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 19-20, and also dependent claims 7, 8, and 12-17 (which are based on independent claim 1 above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter Rose DE 3624514 A1, standing alone.
Regarding independent claim 1 and thus claim 19, Walter Rose DE 3624514 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-6; corresponding text, in particular English translation pgs. 1-4 (attached in PTO-892); Claims) a terminator (overall as in Figs. 1, 3, 5, etc.) for an optical fibre cable 2 including at least one microstructured optical fibre (Description, cable sheath of 2 includes internal fiber optic elements, meeting all structure of “microstructure”), the terminator comprising: a hollow terminating member (hollow / negative space shown in Fig. 1 and formed at Figs. 2-3 inside the structure of 4 / 5 within the overall design of the device) with a closed end right of Figs. at 5) and an opposite open end (left of Figs. is open to receive the cable sheath 2) configured for cooperation with a severed end of an optical fibre cable (cable sheath at 2 with internal components such as optical fiber(s); cable structure is severed / ended in Walter Rose); and a tubular collar 3 / 10 (Figs. 1 and 5) having a first end into which the open end of the hollow terminating member is received in a sealed manner, and an opposite second end to receive the severed end of the optical fibre cable for cooperation with the open end of the terminating member, the second end having an internal diameter which is reducible to seal the tubular collar around the optical fibre cable (see how the bottom portion of 3 / 10 is resistant based on shrinking tension and forces, Title, ABS; and 3 / 10 will thus have a reduced diameter as the sealing occurs (near the open end by 3 and 2 in Figs. 1-6), pgs. 1-4 translation).
First, regarding the second independent claim 19, Walter Rose does not expressly and exactly recite a “kit” for forming such terminator of the optical fiber cable. Walter Rose is silent to such a formation kit. However, all structure of the claim body of claim 19 is substantially similar to independent claim 1. Therefore, using a “kit” to form the features of this terminator would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current application. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). There is no patentable distinction of the resultant structure that is part of the kit. For these reasons, independent claim 19 if found obvious because one having ordinary skill would have accomplished the same results for sealing the tubular collar for an input optical fiber cable. KSR. Further, because the same functional result occurs for heat shrinking function (as in Walter Rose), all structure is found in dependent claim 20 other than the “kit” feature. Therefore, claim 20 is also found as obvious over Walter Rose for the kit language.
Further regarding dependent claims 7-8 (which depend from claims 2-3), 12-14 (which depend from claim 11), and 15-17, Walter Rose does not expressly and exactly teach such further features within the terminator of claim 1. However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as inner/outer diameters of the terminator / cable (claims 7-8), using polymers as transparent or other absorbing features (claims 12-14), to use a tube/plug (claims 15-16), or to use a pressure valve to control fitted pressure (claim 17), because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Walter Rose to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (material properties, transparency, absorbing negative environmental features, plugging, controlling pressure, etc. as selectable design choices) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve the end termination of an optical fiber cable by securely locating the cable within the terminator for future un-capping. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a terminator device such as in Walter Rose. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is found obvious over Walter Rose (and Wolf) as discussed prior to this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Walter Rose to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7-8 and 12-17. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf DE 3401047 A1, standing alone.
Regarding independent claim 1 and thus claim 19, Wolf DE 3401047 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-2; corresponding text, in particular pages 2-3; Claims) a terminator (overall as in Figs. 1-2) for an optical fibre cable including at least one microstructured optical fibre (ABS: for “capping of an optical fibre cable or coaxial cable”; which implies at least one optical fiber is found therein, meeting all structure of “microstructure”), the terminator comprising: a hollow terminating member (hollow / negative space shown in Fig. 1 inside the structure of 2 / 3 within the overall design of element 1) with a closed end (top of Figs.) and an opposite open end (bottom of Figs. is open to receive the cable) configured for cooperation with a severed end of an optical fibre cable (cable sheath at 9 with internal components such as optical fiber(s); cable structure is severed / ended in Wolf); and a tubular collar 8 having a first end into which the open end of the hollow terminating member is received in a sealed manner, and an opposite second end to receive the severed end of the optical fibre cable for cooperation with the open end of the terminating member, the second end having an internal diameter which is reducible to seal the tubular collar around the optical fibre cable (see how the bottom portion of 8 has a reduced diameter as the sealing occurs (near reference no. 10 in Fig. 1), the feature sealing the tubular collar at a smaller diameter is comparison to the top-most features of the hollow terminator member being wider, “pressing tension” and “shrink sleeve”: ABS).
First, regarding the second independent claim 19, Wolf DE ‘047 does not expressly and exactly recite a “kit” for forming such terminator of the optical fiber cable. Wolf is silent to such a formation kit. However, all structure of the claim body of claim 19 is substantially similar to independent claim 1. Therefore, using a “kit” to form the features of this terminator would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current application. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). There is no patentable distinction of the resultant structure that is part of the kit. For these reasons, independent claim 19 if found obvious because one having ordinary skill would have accomplished the same results for sealing the tubular collar for an input optical fiber cable. KSR. Further, because the same functional result occurs for heat shrinking function (as in Wolf), all structure is found in dependent claim 20 other than the “kit” feature. Therefore, claim 20 is also found as obvious over Wolf for the kit language.
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 A, B, and N, which pertain to the state of the art of optical fiber cable terminators to cap a severed/cut/endface of an optical fiber cable during use. Reference U is an English translation of DE ‘514 to Walter Rose.
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 11, 2026