DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments start with the 35USC112 traversal questioning the ambiguity in Examiner’s contention that the closed biasing position is unclear. Applicant argues that because of the brief statement in the Specification indicating a resilient construction is enough to enable such a function. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner pointed out the portion in the Specification as an example of ambiguity. There is no structure recited in the Specification as to how the resilient construction creates the function of closing and Examiner is guessing that some sort of material inherently makes the mesh close. The claim is therefore left open ended for one in the art to guess as to the materials, size, construction, or layout to cause such a function.
Applicant proceeds to argue the 35USC102 rejection claiming that Mullaney fails to disclose the breakout openings along a seam that is biased to closing and merely discloses slits. Applicant points out Figure 11 as showing what is claimed. Figure 11 shows multiple breakout locations but does not show any seams, staggered points, nor any features that indicate self-closing abilities. The prior art comprises a seam which can open at any longitudinal point at a circumferential location (Mullaney figures 11-12). Applicant further points out that because the prior art’s resilient material resists axial stretching, that it therefore cannot bias towards a closing position. First, the claim does not require a specific closing direction. Secondly, a resilient material in the axial direction would also close an opening or seam created in the prior art. Applicant states that if the Office is relying on inherency that the Office Action does not explain why resistance to axial stretching would necessarily result in a bias of the longitudinal edges toward a closed position.
It is exactly this ambiguity that creates the 35USC112 issue stated above. The claim makes no specific structure that defines this closing function and therefore, any biasing in any direction, even axial, would return a stretched and open seam portion back to a closed position. As a very broad example, imagine a “Slinky” toy fully closed and then stretched in an axial direction. Openings would occur and the spring tension would naturally close the large openings back up.
The 35USC103 rebuttal relates to the above points.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains the prior rejection.
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 16-30 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.
Independent claim 16 recites a mesh that is “biased towards (a) closed portion”. However, there is no structure claimed or recited in the Specification as to how this biasing function occurs other than a brief mention of a “resilient construction” (paragraph 38) resulting in an inherent biasing. Examiner is left to guess as to the degree of biasing, materials to be used, shapes, strand layout (helical etc.) or winding. Remaining claims are rejected in the basis of dependency.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,393,986 to Mullany.
Mullany discloses in figures 10-11, A fiber optic breakout assembly comprising:
a mesh sleeve (220) having a sleeve length that extends between a first sleeve end and a second sleeve end (left and right of figure 11), the mesh sleeve having a longitudinal seam (opening 222) that extends along the sleeve length between the first and second sleeve ends, the longitudinal seam having a closed configuration in which longitudinal edges of the mesh sleeve are overlapped (figure 12 and column 1, line 60), the longitudinal sleeve being biased toward the closed position (column 1, lines 57-58 describe materials to resist stretching), the mesh sleeve defining a plurality of breakout openings spaced apart from one another along the sleeve length, the breakout openings being defined through a mesh fabric of the mesh sleeve at locations circumferentially offset from the longitudinal seam; and
a plurality of optical fibers that extend longitudinally through the mesh sleeve, the optical fibers extending into the mesh sleeve through the first sleeve end, at least some of the optical fibers extending out of the mesh sleeve through the breakout openings (figures 9-10).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullany in view of “Atkins & Pearce”.
Mullany discloses the invention as claimed except for expanding portions that are accessible without cutting and along certain positions. It is noted that such split braided self-closing sleeves are common across the electrical and optical arts (such as Atkins and Pearce; see screenshot of internet archive to at least 2020). Selecting this style mesh sleeving and spacing the breakout locations would be within ordinary skill of the art.
Claim 18 recites language pertaining to the steps of use or assembly which are not positive limitations in an apparatus claim.
Claims 19-20 relate to spacing the seam opening. Rearranging opening locations would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 21, an end is reinforced with pulling point 225 in figure 10. The claims are not specific as to the functional recitation of collapse resistance or amount of shrinking (or associated materials). The prior art pulling point is smaller than the rest of the component and therefore is shrunk.
As to claim 22, groups of fibers may be arranged (figure 9).
Claims 23-20 relate to additional sleeves, fibers, types of fibers, bonding materials and boots common to connector cable arts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the sleeves, add sleeves or alter them as claimed as a matter of obvious design choice with obvious variants to expand capacity, create better aesthetics or suit the sleeve for the types of cables in use.
PNG
media_image1.png
874
1504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights