DETAILED ACTION
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 March 27, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Five (5) sheets of drawings were filed on March 27, 2024.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed May 27, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 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 as the argument in the remarks are in reference to amended claim 1, which necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US20130266278A1), hereafter Kato in view of Horibe et al. (US20130114932A1), hereafter Horibe.
Regarding Claim 1, Kato discloses a photoelectric composite connector (Abstract. FIG 1 and accompanying figures) to be mounted on a circuit board (FIG. 4 outer board 11. Par. [0059]), comprising: at least one optical ferrule (FIG. 4 Ferrule 19); at least one electrical connection terminal (FIG 4. Terminal connector 24); a housing (FIG 2. Housing body 15) mountable with the optical ferrule (FIG 4. Ferrule 19) and the electrical connection terminal (FIG 4. Terminal connector 24), the housing including a ferrule mounting portion (FIG. 16 first sleeve holding ribs) and a terminal mounting portion ( See annotated FIG. 2), the terminal mounting portion having a terminal insertion hole (FIG. 2 Terminal Insertion Holes 25); and a retainer member (FIG 2. Cap 16.) fittable to the ferrule mounting portion of the housing (FIG 4. Second sleeve holding ribs 44) from above (FIG. 2), the electrical connection terminal being directly fixed to the housing by being press-fit into the terminal insertion hole of the terminal mounting portion (FIG.4 and annotated FIG. 2), and the optical ferrule being held in the housing by being sandwiched between the housing and the retainer member (FIG 4. The term 'sandwich' refers to the ferrule (19) being positioned between the housing (15) and the retaining member (16) once the connector is assembled).
Kato fails to disclose the retainer member including an inserting portion having a pression portion at a tip thereof.
Horibe teaches the retainer member including an inserting portion (securing cap 16) having a pression portion (two legs 216a and 216b) at a tip thereof (FIG. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Kato connector by incorporating the teachings of Horibe, thereby providing the retainer member with an inserting portion having a pression (pressure/biasing) portion at its tip. Both references relate to the retainer structures of connector assemblies used to secure internal components (such as ferrules). A person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Horibe to ensure Kato’s optical ferrule remains firmly seated within the housing under varying conditions without relying solely on simple, rigid "sandwiching.” The use of snap-fit or pressure-applying arms is a well-known, off-the-shelf mechanical solution for securing ferrules and caps in electrical and optical connectors. Modifying Kato in this manner represents a simple substitution of known elements to yield predictable results.
Kato/Horibe fails to disclose the pressing portion of the inserting portion contacting and pressing a rear end portion of the optical ferrule.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the pressing portion of the insertion portion contacting and pressing a rear end portion of the optical ferrule. Applying pressure to the rear end of an optical ferrule is a standard, well-known technique in the art to ensure stable axial positioning and prevent the ferrule from shifting during mating. Adapting the insertion portion of the prior art to contact and press the rear end involves only standard engineering modifications to achieve a secure, bias-loaded connection. The modification yields the predictable, expected result of improved structural stability and precise alignment, making it a mere matter of routine design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Kato/Horibe disclose the device of claim 1. Kato further discloses the electrical connection terminal (FIG 4. Terminal connector 24) is directly electrically connected to the circuit board at a board connecting portion (conductive path) projecting outwardly of the housing (Par. [0065]. FIG 4 illustrates the terminal connectors 24 projecting out of the housing 15).
Regarding claim 5, Kato/Horibe disclose the device of claim 4. Kato further discloses the board connecting portion (conductive path) of the electrical connection terminal is electrically connected to the circuit board by surface mounting by soldering or being inserted into a through hole (Par. [0065]).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US20130266278A1), hereafter Kato, in view of Horibe et al. (US20130114932A1), hereafter Horibe, and in further view of Maesoba et al. (US20130183002A1), hereafter Maesoba.
Regarding Claim 2, Kato/Horibe disclose the device of claim 1. Kato further discloses, a sleeve (FIG. 4. Sleeve 34), the optical ferrule being insertable into the sleeve (FIG 4. Par. [0075]), wherein: the optical ferrule is held in the housing by being sandwiched between the housing and the retainer member (FIG.4. The term 'sandwich' refers to the ferrule (19) being positioned between the housing (15) and the retaining member (16) once the connector is assembled) with a tip portion of the optical ferrule accommodated in the sleeve. Paragraph 0075 states the ferule is fitted into the sleeve from the front side (from the direction indicated by the arrow in FIG. 4). Therefore, the tip in accommodated into the sleeve.
Kato fails to disclose the sleeve is a split sleeve.
Maesoba teaches a split sleeve (1) housed in optical connector to accommodate ferrule (201) (Figures 2 and 4; Par. [0039]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleeve of Kato to include the split sleeve design of Maesoba. Such a modification represents a predictable variation to achieve the known, desirable function of enhancing alignment precision and preventing axis deviation of the ferrules. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it advantageous to replace the rigid sleeve of Kato with the split sleeve of Maesoba to ensure a tight, precise fit, thereby reducing insertion loss, as taught by Maesoba.
Regarding claim 7, Kato/Horibe/Maesoba discloses the device of claim 2. Kato further discloses the housing (FIG 2. Housing body 15) include a tubular portion extending forward (Light receiving resin member 32) into a fitting portion (Hood 17. Par.[0061]) of the housing.). A sleeve (34) includes in the tubular portion (light receiving resin member 32. Par. [0075]), and the optical ferrule fit into the sleeve within the tubular portion (FIG. 4. Par[0075]).
Kato/Horibe/Maesoba fails to disclose a split sleeve that is press-fit into the tubular portion.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art make the sleeve and tubular portion separable to achieve a press-fit function when connected since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 3 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US20130266278A1), hereafter Kato , in view of Horibe et al. (US20130114932A1), hereafter Horibe, and in further view of Tsunoda et al. (US20080131058A1), hereafter Tsunoda.
Regarding claim 3, Kato/Horibe disclose the device of claim 1. Kato further discloses the optical ferrule (FIG 4. Ferrule 19) is coupled to an optical fiber (18). Kato/Horibe fails to disclose the optical ferrule and fiber fixed to the circuit board via the optical fiber or coupled to an optical communication module mounted on the circuit board via the optical fiber.
Tsunoda teaches the optical ferrule (Par. [0058] Ferrule 31) is coupled to an optical fiber (Par. [0058]) and coupled to an optical communication module (FIG 2. Transmitting module 16) mounted on the circuit board (35) via the optical fiber (Par. [0059] and [0068]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kato/Horibe's connector by mounting it to a circuit board and coupling it to a communication module, as taught by Tsunoda, to achieve the predictable result of high-density photoelectric signal transmission.
Regarding claim 8, Kato/Horibe/Tsunoda disclose the device of claim 3. Kato/Horibe/Tsunoda fails to disclose the photoelectric composite connector does not incorporate an optical communication module therein, and the optical ferrule is coupled to an optical communication module mounted on the circuit board via the optical fiber, such that an optical signal is transmittable between a mating connector and the optical communication module via the optical ferrule.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art separate the optical communication module from the photoelectric composite connector since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US20130266278A1) , in view of Horibe et al. (US20130114932A1), hereafter Horibe, and in further view of Kawamura et al (US5588080A), hereafter Kawamura.
Regarding claim 6, Kato/Horibe discloses the device of claim 1. Kato/Horibe further discloses a retainer member(FIG 2. Cap 16.). Kato/Horibe fails to disclose the retainer member further includes an engaging portion configured to be engaged with an engaging projection provided on the ferrule mounting portion of the housing, the engaging portion being resiliently deformable to fix the retainer member to the ferrule mounting portion.
Kawamura teaches an engaging portion (FIG. 11. locking portions 24) configured to be engaged with an engaging projection (FIG. 11. projection 12f) provided on the ferrule mounting portion of the housing (FIG. 11. housing main body 12), the engaging portion being resiliently deformable to fix the retainer member to the ferrule mounting portion (Column 5 lines 28-37).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the retainer of Kato/Horibe with Kawamura's deformable locking mechanism to create a secure, snap-fit attachment between the retainer and the housing. The use of resiliently deformable hooks and engaging projections is a classic, widely understood engineering method for creating secure, releasable connections in crowded housings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Kawamura’s locking mechanism to Kato’s device is a straightforward design optimization to achieve a tool-less, snap-fit assembly. Kawamura’s deformable locking portions simply replace the static mounting setup of Kato, yielding predictable, expected results.
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 TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights