DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on September 27, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 1 as the sole independent.
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 September 27, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (eight (8) pages) were received on September 27, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 4, the term “two gripping spaces” should read “two gripping spacers.” Regarding dependent claims 6-7, the phrasing of “the or each gripping spacer” is awkward and should be re-drafted. Also further noting claim 7, the language claiming of “its” should not be used in US PTO claim language, and having “spacer(s)” (using parenthesis) should also be avoided. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5, 7, and 19-20 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.
Claims 2-3 recites the limitation "a gripping spacer" (claim 2), and “the gripping spacer” (claim 3) in the claim body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. There are already “one or more gripping spacers” defined in independent claim 1, and the addition of this further language using “a” / “the” gripping spacer is thus unclear. It is vague and indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if this is a newly claimed “gripping spacer” in claim 2 or claim 3, or merely referring to one of the “one or more” gripping spacers in independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “two gripping spacers”, which should read “the one or more gripping spacers are two gripping spacers” (from claim 1) for clarity. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis without such identification. If these corrections are made in claim 4, the feature of “each gripping spacer” in claim 5 will be proper. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 7 recites “its”, which is unclear if referring to the “the or each gripping spacer” or the “optical fiber terminator” itself. Correction is required and using “its” is not recommended in US PTO claims. Claim 7 is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lacking proper antecedent basis (of “its”).
Claims 19-20 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. Claim 1 is a system / device / apparatus claim (along with intervening dependent claims 11, 12, 16, and 18), but added dependent claims 19-20 are attempting to add method steps (for “manufacturing” or “assembling” or “using”) into this system claim. Accordingly, claim features from two statutory classes are included in one claim. A single claim that includes both an apparatus and a method of manufacturing / assembling / using the apparatus is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). It may be unclear if infringement occurs when the method is performed, or if just having the structure of the device / apparatus is enough for infringement. For these reasons, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejection may be overcome by deleting the method step(s). For examination purposes, the step limitation will be treated as an intended result limitation and rejected if the structure of the prior art device is capable of such featured intention.
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, 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikesugi et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,751,876.
Ikesugi et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,751,876 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2, 4-6; corresponding text, see columns 2-3; Claims) an optical fibre terminator 1 (Figs. 1, 2, 5; fibers terminate in this element) for terminating two or more parallel optical fibers (2, with fibers at 2a section in each) each optical fibre comprising an optical waveguide core surrounded by a protective polymer jacket 12 (the jacket will have plastic / polymer configuration based on 1990’s Molex compositions for jacketed cables), the terminator including: a housing 3 having a front face 3a (left side in Figs. 1-2) and a backshell (remainder of housing (near 3c, Figs. 1-2) other than front face), and being configured for insertion thereinto of the two or more parallel optical fibres so that respective end faces of the two or more optical fibres are located at predetermined spaced positions relative to the front face and the two or more optical fibres extend rearwardly away from the front face through the backshell of the housing (Fig. 2 shows when the fiber(s) are connected and retained); and one or more gripping spacers 4 / 6 (Figs. show two spacers) that are capable of being subsequently insertable into one or more respective, matching channels formed in the backshell behind the front face (see the negative space such as in Fig. 5 where the “gripping spacers” are inserted) such that each gripping spacer, on its insertion, is capable of non-piercingly grips a jacketed flank of at least one optical fibre on a side of the spacer to thereby retain the fibres in the housing with the fibre end faces locked at the predetermined spaced positions (the fiber(s) / cable(s) are not pierced or damaged and locked into predetermined locations within 1, see Fig. 2; see column 2, lines 44-63), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, and in particular noting the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) lack of proper antecedent basis rejection, as best as the Examiner can understand the scope of this claim, the “gripping spacer” of Ikesugi meets such structure, in that matching channels are formed in element 1 to grip jacketed flanks of the fiber cable, and retain the fibers in such locations (see Figs. 1, 2, and 5 of Ikesugi).
Regarding claim 6, the gripping spacer of Fig. 1 can be moved up and down (“removed”) from the negative space.
Regarding claim 10, there are “just two” fibers, which meets the structure.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones U.S. Patent No. 5,280,556.
Jones U.S. Patent No. 5,280,556 teaches (ABS; Figs. 2-3; corresponding text, see columns 2-4; Claims) an optical fibre terminator 60 (Fig. 2; fibers terminate in this element) for terminating two or more parallel optical fibers (47 within 49, with fibers at each section) each optical fibre comprising an optical waveguide core surrounded by a protective polymer jacket 53 (“outer plastic jacket”, column 3, lines 30-36; of Fig. 3), the terminator including: a housing 62 (all feature of 60 / 62 as an assembly) having a front face 68 (right side in Fig. 2) and a backshell (remainder of housing at 69, with block 75 other than front face), and being configured for insertion thereinto of the two or more parallel optical fibres so that respective end faces of the two or more optical fibres are located at predetermined spaced positions relative to the front face and the two or more optical fibres extend rearwardly away from the front face through the backshell of the housing (Figs. 1 and 3 show when the fiber(s) are connected and retained); and one or more gripping spacers 100 (Figs. show two spacers with clamping features) that are capable of being subsequently insertable into one or more respective, matching channels (grooves) formed in the backshell behind the front face (see the negative space such as in Fig. 2 where the “gripping spacers” are inserted) such that each gripping spacer, on its insertion, is capable of non-piercingly grips a jacketed flank of at least one optical fibre on a side of the spacer to thereby retain the fibres in the housing with the fibre end faces locked at the predetermined spaced positions (the fiber(s) / cable(s) are not pierced or damaged and locked into predetermined locations within grooves, see Fig. 2; see column 3-4 regarding retention of 100 / 104), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, and in particular noting the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) lack of proper antecedent basis rejection, as best as the Examiner can understand the scope of this claim, the “gripping spacer” of Jones meets such structure, in that matching channels are formed in element to grip jacketed flanks of the fiber cable, and retain the fibers in such locations (see Figs. 1-3 of Jones).
Regarding claim 3, the structural formation of the ribs 104 in the clamping features meets “serrated” in structure, because they formed jagged edges (up-down).
Regarding claim 6, the gripping spacer of Fig. 2 (at 100) can be moved up and down (“removed” with the screw 106) from the negative space.
Regarding claim 8, the front face of the housing also includes respective opening(s) for the fiber(s) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, there are “just two” fibers, which meets the structure.
At least independent claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,227,719 B1 and Ito U.S. Patent No. 4,765,700.
Aoki et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,227,719 B1 (see ABS; Figs. 6-8; column 3, line 41 through column 5, line 40; Claims) and Ito U.S. Patent No. 4,765,700 (see ABS; Fig. 1; corresponding text, in particular columns 2-3; Claims) both teach:
An optical fibre terminator (Figs. 1, 2, and 6-8 in Aoki element 40; Fig. 2 in Ito element 13 + 12 – fibers terminate in each reference) for terminating two or more parallel optical fibers each optical fibre comprising an optical waveguide core surrounded by a protective polymer jacket, the terminator including: a housing having a front face and a backshell, and being configured for insertion thereinto of the two or more parallel optical fibres so that respective end faces of the two or more optical fibres are located at predetermined spaced positions relative to the front face and the two or more optical fibres extend rearwardly away from the front face through the backshell of the housing; and one or more gripping spacers (47 in Aoki; 11 in Ito; each reference shows spacer(s) to “grip”) that are capable of being subsequently insertable into one or more respective, matching channels formed in the backshell behind the front face such that each gripping spacer, on its insertion, is capable of non-piercingly grips a jacketed flank of at least one optical fibre on a side of the spacer to thereby retain the fibres in the housing with the fibre end faces locked at the predetermined spaced positions, which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole pending independent claim 1.
Applicant is requested to amend substantial structural limitations into the sole pending independent claim 1 to create a patentable distinction over the plethora of prior art reference (Ikesugi; Jones; Aoki; Ito) which clearly anticipate claim 1’s structure.
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.
Claims 3-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikesugi et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,751,876, standing alone.
Regarding base and sole pending independent claim 1, Ikesugi et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,751,876 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2, 4-6; corresponding text, see columns 2-3; Claims) an optical fibre terminator 1 (Figs. 1, 2, 5; fibers terminate in this element) for terminating two or more parallel optical fibers (2, with fibers at 2a section in each) each optical fibre comprising an optical waveguide core surrounded by a protective polymer jacket 12 (the jacket will have plastic / polymer configuration based on 1990’s Molex compositions for jacketed cables), the terminator including: a housing 3 having a front face 3a (left side in Figs. 1-2) and a backshell (remainder of housing (near 3c, Figs. 1-2) other than front face), and being configured for insertion thereinto of the two or more parallel optical fibres so that respective end faces of the two or more optical fibres are located at predetermined spaced positions relative to the front face and the two or more optical fibres extend rearwardly away from the front face through the backshell of the housing (Fig. 2 shows when the fiber(s) are connected and retained); and one or more gripping spacers 4 / 6 (Figs. show two spacers) that are capable of being subsequently insertable into one or more respective, matching channels formed in the backshell behind the front face (see the negative space such as in Fig. 5 where the “gripping spacers” are inserted) such that each gripping spacer, on its insertion, is capable of non-piercingly grips a jacketed flank of at least one optical fibre on a side of the spacer to thereby retain the fibres in the housing with the fibre end faces locked at the predetermined spaced positions (the fiber(s) / cable(s) are not pierced or damaged and locked into predetermined locations within 1, see Fig. 2; see column 2, lines 44-63).
Regarding further dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, and 11-20, Ikesugi US ‘876 does not expressly and exactly teach each specific further individual structural feature for an overall design “optical fiber terminator”, to include serrated opposing sides of the grippers (claims 3 and 5), specific insertion / urging of fibers (claim 4), obround cross section (claim 7), openings in the front face (claim 8), flush location with front face (claim 9), an additional sealing element that seals the terminator to a docking port located in a matching groove of the backshell (claim 11), or the set of terminators (claim 12) with adding features in removed dependent claim form (claims 13-20 depend from claim 12). 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 those mechanical and structural features of the design of the terminator, or to use a sealing element to attach the terminator to a docking port, 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 Ikesugi to perform equally well with such features as the mechanical structural dependencies 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 gripping and secure location the two parallel fibers into the housing by using one/more gripper members. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with an optical fiber terminator such as in Ikesugi. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is found obvious over Ikesugi and many more prior art references 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) Ikesugi to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3-5, 7-9, and 11-20. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form reference A to Sloan US ‘346, which pertains to the state of the art of clamping / protection two parallel optical fiber cable tips.
Applicant is respectfully requested to amend substantial structural limitations, or designed functional features of the device, into the sole pending independent claim 1 to create a patentable distinction over the plethora of prior art reference (Ikesugi; Jones; Aoki; Ito) which clearly anticipate claim 1’s structure.
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 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights