DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on February 25, 2026. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Drawings
The amended drawing to Fig. 1E corrected the two instances of reference numeral “162b”. Thus, the objection is withdrawn.
The amended drawing to Fig. 1E has 1 instance of reference numeral “162b” remaining. The Specification is not amended to refer to “162b”. Applicant can correct this objection by deleting the remaining numeral “162b” or amend the Specification to designate a name for the numeral “162b”. Thus, the objection remains.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “162b”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant remarked reference numeral “161” refers to a “first stop surface” which is also known as a or sometimes referred to as the “upper contact surface”. Similarly, element “162” refers to a “second stop surface” which is also known as or sometimes referred to as the “lower contact surface.”
However, the Specification on page 3, lines 21-22 describes “[u]nder some conditions, the stop features can make contact before the mating surfaces make contact.” This appears to disclose the in some embodiments stop surface and contact surface are different structures. Moreover, 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) states:
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Applicant can amend the Specification such that the reference numbers consistently refers to the same structure or designate a different reference numbers for the upper and lower stop surface and the upper and lower contact surface.
For these reasons the examiner maintains the objection below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “161” has been used to designate both “first stop surface” and “upper contact surface”. Reference character “162” has been used to designate both “second stop surface” and “lower contact surface” (Spec, page 7, lines 28-36). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-4 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.
As written the claim has no upper limit and is unbounded. In contrast to applicant’s argument (Remarks page 5-6), one of ordinary skill in the art cannot easily obtain an upper limit for the offset of the surfaces because there is nothing in the claim language that either states or implies an upper limit, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Applicant further argues “[t]he proper test is whether the claims, read in light of the specification and the knowledge of a POSITA, inform with reasonable certainty the scope of the invention.”
Applicant fails to point out in the specification wherein a POSITA can obtain the general teaching of the upper boundary. Furthermore, the examiner cannot find in Specification that discloses or implies the upper boundary. For these reasons the examiner maintains the ground of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haase et al. (US 2015/0219863 A1, herein “Haase”).
Claim 1. Haase discloses an optical assembly (Figs. 4a, 4b), comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
211
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an optical ferrule (400), and
a plurality of optical waveguides (Fig. 2: 202);
wherein the optical ferrule receives light from the plurality of optical waveguides along a first direction and redirects the light to a second direction different from the first direction, such that the redirected light exits the optical ferrule through an optically transmitting window of the optical ferrule disposed in a mating surface of the optical ferrule and is transmitted toward an optically transmitting window of an identical mating optical ferrule (Fig. 2b demonstrates the light path within the optical assembly, light enters the assembly through fiber 202, passes through the input side of light redirecting element 212, incidents on the light redirecting side 224 traveling perpendicularly to the output side 226; Para [0037], [0039]);
the optical ferrule (400) comprising first and second compound stop features (419 and 418) respectively disposed at opposing sides of the optical ferrule (left and right side of the ferrule), each compound stop feature comprising upper and lower contact surfaces, the lower contact surface having an offset along a thickness axis of the optical ferrule perpendicular to the mating surface, the upper contact surface having an offset above the mating surface along the thickness axis, and the lower contact surface having an offset forward from the upper contact surface along a mating direction of the optical ferrule.
PNG
media_image3.png
617
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Haase does not teach a connecting surface connecting the upper contact surface and the lower contact surface, the connecting surface being inclined at a non-zero angle with respect to the mating surface over the majority of a length of the connecting surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the contact surfaces as a design choice, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of contact surfaces for the purpose of to permit the two surfaces to make a tighter fit.
Claim 2. Haase discloses the optical ferrule of claim 1, wherein: the mating surface is configured to slidably engage with a mating surface of a mating optical ferrule; and the upper and lower contact surfaces are configured to respectively contact lower and upper contact surfaces of the mating ferrule. The upper contact surface (419) of the identical ferrule (400) shown in Fig. 4b as inverted is slidably engaged with the lower contact surface of the ferrule (400) of Fig. 4a (Para [0041]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Haase discloses the optical assembly of claim 1. Haase further discloses the mating ferrules are identical. The compound stop features are disposed on both sides of the two mating ferrules. The upper contact surface (419) of ferrule in Fig. 4a complements the lower contact surface 418 of ferrule in Fig. 4b. The upper contact surface has an offset (curved edge) on both all four compound stop features (two compound stop features on each side of ferrule in Fig. 4a and ferrule in Fig. 4b). The lower contact surface has an offset (curved edge) on both all four compound stop features (two compound stop features on each side of ferrule in Fig. 4a and ferrule in Fig. 4b). The two ferrules are passively aligned by slidably mate with each other when the compound stop features are engaged.
However, Haase does not explicitly teach the offset of the lower contact surface and the offset of the upper contact surface is more than 50 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the offset such that the two identical ferrule would mate and passively align the optical signals from both ferrules since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The offset alignment is critical the coupling efficiency of the optical assembly, therefore, one would be motivated to accurately measure the offset of the compound stop to align the signals along the optical axis.
Claim 5. Haase discloses the mating surface (tongue 430) is configured slidably engage with a mating surface of the mating optical ferrule (Para [0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner presented a prima facie case of obviousness rejection addressing the amended limitations. All claims are rejected above.
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 Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 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, Thomas A. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874