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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Yi 20140161398US in view of the US Patent to Lee 5,838,856US.
In terms of Claim 1, Yi teaches An alignment frame (Figure 5: 20)) for facilitating a mating of a first ferrule (Figure 5: body of 44 and 42) to a second ferrule (Figure 9: body of 22) along a mating direction (Figure 9: along Z axis), comprising: a base (Figure 9: 44); opposing first and second arms (Figure 5: left and right arms of 50) extending forwardly from opposing ends of the base (Figure 5: left and right arms of 50); spaced apart first and second flexible features (Figure 5: protrusion on the inner sidewall of 50 closest to front face of 44) disposed on an inner surface of the first arm and facing the second arm (Figure 5: inner protrusion of 50); and spaced apart third and fourth flexible features disposed on an inner surface of the second arm (Figure 5: 52) and facing the first arm, such that when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule (Figure 9), the opposing first and third flexible features are flexed and in contact with the first ferrule (Figure 5: inner protrusion on the inner surface of 50 comes in contact with 22), and the opposing second and fourth flexible features are flexed and in contact with the second ferrule (Figure 5: 52 are flexed away and comes in contact with the body of 44 via the rear end of 50).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yi does not teach wherein the alignment frame is “a standalone component that is not integrally formed with either 1st or 2nd ferrule”.
Lee does teach an alignment frame (Figure 4: 130), that houses or holds a first and a second ferrule device (Figure 4: 120 and 110) containing fibers (Figure 4: 1). The alignment frame is “a standalone component that is not integrally formed with either ferrule” for the purpose of aligning the two ferrules together (Column 2, lines 50-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yi to include a standalone housing frame that enhances alignment of the two ferrules incase the two ferrules are dislodge from each other (Column 2, lines 50-57). The frame acts as an additional alignment structures the ensure the two ferrules are not dislodge or decoupled if the device made forceable contact with something else or if the device was dropped onto the ground.
As for Claim 2, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule (Figure 9: wherein ferrule on 44 and ferrule on 22 mates) resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule (Figure 3), the first and second flexible features are flexed in a same first direction (Figure 5), and the second and fourth flexible features are flexed in a same second direction opposite the first direction (Figure 5).
As for Claim 3, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule, the first and second ferrules are disposed, at least partially, between the first and second arms (See Figure 5 above).
As for Claim 4, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, such that when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule (Figure 9), the opposing first and third flexible features are each flexed outwardly by the first ferrule a first distance and the opposing second and fourth flexible features are each flexed outwardly by the second ferrule a second distance greater than the first distance (See Figure 5 above: 1st distance and 2nd distance, 1st-4th flexible features).
As for Claim 5, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the first, second, third and fourth flexible features lie substantially in a same plane (Figure 5).
As for Claim 6, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, such that when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule along a mating direction resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule (Figure 9), a plane perpendicular to the mating direction and connecting the second and fourth flexible features intersects both the first and second ferrules (Figure 5: see distance between 2nd and fourth flexible feature), and a plane perpendicular to the mating direction and connecting the first and third flexible features intersects only the first ferrule (Figure 5 above: see plane of 1st and 2nd distance and 1st-4th flexible features).
As for Claim 7, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the first and second flexible features have different flexing properties (See Figure 5: above wherein the features flex away at different distances).
As for Claim 8, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the third and fourth flexible features have different flexing properties (See Figures 3-5 above).
As for Claim 9, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the first flexible feature is disposed on a first portion of the first arm closer to the base (See Figure 5 above: wherein flexible features on the inside protrusion are closer to 44) and the second flexible feature is disposed on a second portion of the first arm farther from the base, the first and second portions of the first arm having different flexing properties (See Figure 5: 52 above).
As for Claim 10, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the third flexible feature is disposed on a first portion of the second arm closer to the base and the fourth flexible feature is disposed on a second portion of the second arm farther from the base, the first and second portions of the second arm having different flexing properties (See Figure 5 above).
As for Claim 11, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the first and second flexible features lie on a first straight line substantially parallel to the mating direction (See Figure 5 above wherein the arms are parallel to z axis), and the third and fourth flexible features lie on a second straight line different than and substantially parallel to the first straight line (See Figure 5 above).
As for Claim 12, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the first and third flexible features lie on a first straight line substantially perpendicular to the mating direction (See Figure 5: wherein horizontal distances are perpendicular to mating direction), and the second and fourth flexible features lie on a second straight line different than and substantially parallel to the first straight line (See Figure 5 above).
As for Claim 13, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the first and third flexible features have substantially same first flexing properties, and the second and fourth flexible features have substantially same second flexing properties (See Figure 5 above: 1st-4th flexible features and their location on arms 50 of left and right side).
As for Claim 14, Yi teaches the device of Claim 13, wherein the second flexing properties are different than the first flexing properties (See Figure 3-5).
As for Claim 15, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, such that when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule (Figure 9), the opposing first and third flexible features are flexed and in contact with corresponding inflexible features on the first ferrule (Figure 3 or 4: wherein arms 50 are flexed and contact with sidewalls of 22), and the opposing second and fourth flexible features are flexed and in contact with corresponding inflexible features on the second ferrule (Figure 4).
As for Claim 16, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein each of the first and second flexible features is flexible, at least in part, by virtue of the first arm being flexible, and each of the third and fourth flexible features is flexible, at least in part, by virtue of the second arm being flexible (Figure 5).
As for Claim 17, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein a front portion of each arm splits into upper and lower beams, such that each of the first and second flexile features is disposed on an inner surface of a different flexible beam of the first flexible arm, and each of the third and fourth flexile features is disposed on an inner surface of a different flexible beam of the second flexible arm (See Figure 5 above).
As for Claim 18, Yi teaches the device of Claim 17, wherein each of the first and second flexible features is flexible, at least in part, by virtue of the upper and lower beams of the first arm being flexible, and each of the third and fourth flexible features is flexible, at least in part, by virtue of the upper and lower beams of the second arm being flexible (Figure 5 above).
As for Claim 19, Yi teaches the device of Claim 18, such that when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule (Figure 9 or Figure 4), the upper beams of the first and second flexible arms are flexed and in contact with corresponding inflexible features on the first ferrule, and the lower beams of the first and second flexible arms are flexed and in contact with corresponding inflexible features on the second ferrule (Figure 5: the protrusion on the inner wall of the arms form a beam ledge structure on the inside while the 52 is located on arms without a ledge thus form a separate beams structure of 50).
As for Claim 20, Yi teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein when the alignment frame facilitates a mating of a first ferrule to a second ferrule along a mating direction in a mating plane resulting in the first ferrule being mated to the second ferrule (Figures 9 and 3), and the first and second ferrules are misaligned relative to each other in the mating plane (See Figure 9 wherein the structures are not fully aligned until 52 is attached to grooves of 62), the first, second, third and fourth flexible features cooperatively guide the first and second ferrules into alignment with each other (See Figure 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this instant the applicant argues the modification of Yi as shown in Figure 9 does not require the features element ‘130’ of Lee because the device teaches another method of method of aligning that does not require “a standalone alignment frame” and thus the combination would teach away if features of ‘130’ was combine with the device of Figure 9 of Yi shown below (Remarks Page 6: Last Paragraph).
PNG
media_image2.png
298
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as shown in Figures 11 and 12 below, the alignment frame 130 ensure the ferrule stays aligned by keep the ferrules in contact with each other. Once combined with the features Figure 9 above. The housing 130 acts as a means to store the combined mated structure of 20 and 22 so it will stay combined even if it has been dislodged. This provides additional alignment protection in case the flexible arms 50 does not provide a secure engagement due to being worn out or just purely failing. Hence, the examiner does not think the combination will teach away or break any functionality of the primary structure as shown in Figure 9 above. It merely adds an additional layer of alignment protection for the device in case the arms fail due to wear and tear, incidental dislodging, or manufacturing design fit tolerance not being sized perfectly to perform the desired engagement.
PNG
media_image3.png
628
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The applicant further argues the alignment frame 130 of Lee as shown in Figure 11 above does not “facilitate alignment” of the two ferrules (Remarks Page 6).
The examiner also finds this argument to be non-persuasive because facilitate is define by Merriam Webster dictionary as “to make easier” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/20facilitate). In this instant the frame 130 meets this definition by ensure the alignment is easier to maintained during mating. Thus, the structure of element 130 is capable of “facilitate alignment” as recited in Claim 1.
This action is therefore made FINAL for the reason(s) detailed above.
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 HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - Friday.
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 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874