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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schofield [EP0715194].
Schofield discloses an optical fiber assembly. It is noted the claim uses the method of producing the optical fiber assembly as the manner to describe the structure of the optical fiber assembly, the prior art is not required to disclose the same manner of producing the optical fiber assembly and is only required to disclose the structure required by the method. Schofield is considered to disclose all of the structure required of the optical fiber assembly. Schofield discloses an optical fiber assembly (10) including a bonding agent comprising an anerobic adhesive (anerobic adhesive composition) in a ferrule bore of a ferrule (16), wherein the bonding agent is capable of having a viscosity within the claimed range (column 2, lines 41-52; column 3, lines 1-16; column 3, line 51-59); an optical fiber (20) in the ferrule bore while the bonding agent in the ferrule bore (column 3, lines 51-59).
With respect to claim 2, Schofield discloses a bonding agent capable of having the claimed viscosity (column 2, lines 7-16).
With respect to claims 3-8, the claims are directed toward method limitations and not the structure of the optical fiber assembly itself. Schofield discloses all of the required structure required by these claims.
With respect to claim 9, Schofield discloses an anaerobic adhesive (column 2, lines 41-52).
With respect to claim 10, Schofield discloses the same anaerobic adhesive and one of ordinary skill would expect the same adhesive to have the same properties including glass transition temperature.
With respect to claim 12, Schofield discloses the front portion of the ferrule comprises a length of about 5 mm extending from a front end of the ferrule (column 4, lines 19-25).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield in view of Cole [WO00/22060].
Schofield discloses an optical fiber assembly. Schofield discloses all of the required structure but does not explicitly disclose a pull force of the optical fiber. Cole discloses an optical fiber assembly and discloses the optical fiber has a pull force of at least 10N (Table 1,2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the assembly of Schofield to have a pull force as taught by Cole in order to improve the quality of the final product and to prevent damage to the assembly during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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 MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights