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 .
Notice of Amendment
The amendment filed 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-25 are pending. Claims 1 and 24-25 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but Applicant has amended independent claim 1 with the newly added limitation stating, “wherein the jacket is an extruded jacket applied directly to the fiber bundle by extrusion without an air gap between the jacket and the fiber bundle.” Independent claim 24 has been amended with the newly added limitation stating, “a jacket surrounding the fiber bundle along at least a section of a length of the light guide, wherein the light guide has a maximum outer lateral dimension of a cross-section al area of the light guide that is 500um greater than a maximum outer lateral dimension of a cross-section area of the fiber bundle….” Such newly added limitations: changes the scope of the claims, renders the previously rejections moot, and requires a new ground of rejection. Therefore, the rejections identified in the final office action dated 12/19/2025, have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made below. Please see the rejection under section 35 U.S.C §103 below.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 7-25 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 recites the limitation “wherein the jacket is an extruded jacket applied directly to the fiber bundle by extrusion without an air gap between the jacket and the fiber bundle” in lines 7-8. “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph,” [See MPEP 2173.05(p) (II)] …unless it is clear that the claim is directed to the product and not the process.” See MPEP 2173.05(p)(I). Here the limitation is worded to claim a product-by-process, wherein the product is an extruded jacket abutting a fiber bundle and comprising the method step of applying the extruded jacket to the fiber bundle by the process of extrusion without an air gap. As the limitation is currently stated, it is unclear whether the claim is directed to the product and not the process. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite. Claim 2-5 and 7-23 are also rejected because of their dependency, either direct or indirect, on the rejected base claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “wherein the jacket is an extruded jacket configured to abut the fiber bundle without an air gap between the jacket and the fiber bundle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an extruded jacket in line 2. However claim 1, which claim 4 directly depends from, previously introduces “an extruded jacket” in line 7. Therefore it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 4 is introducing a distinctly different extruded jacket or merely referencing the extruded jacket previously introduced in claim 1. It is suggested to omit the limitation in claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an extruded jacket in lines 2-3. However claim 1, which claim 5 directly depends from, previously introduces “an extruded jacket” in line 7. Therefore it is unclear whether the limitation in claim 5 is introducing a distinctly different extruded jacket or merely referencing the extruded jacket previously introduced in claim 1. It is suggested to omit the limitation in claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the optical fibers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the plurality of optical fibers.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the optical fibers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “the plurality of optical fibers.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “glass optical fibers” in line 1. However claim 8, which claim 11 directly depends from, also introduces “glass optical fibers” in lines 1-2. Therefore it is unclear whether claim 11 is introducing new and separate glass optical fibers or merely referencing the glass optical fiber previously introduced in claim 8. It is suggested to amend the limitation in claim 11 to state, “the glass optical fibers.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a jacket” twice in lines 10-11. However claim 13 directly depends from claim 1, which also introduces the limitation “a jacket” in line 3. Therefore it is unclear whether claim 13 is introducing a separate jacket or merely referencing the jack previously introduced in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the proximal and/or distal end face" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the proximal and/or distal end faces" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “an area ratio of a cross- sectional area of the light guide to a cross-sectional area of the fiber bundle of at least 1.025 and at most 2.64.” It is unclear how the phrase “at least 1.025 and at most 2.64” is referencing the area ratio. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “an area ratio of a cross- sectional area of the light guide to a cross-sectional area of the fiber bundle of at least 1.025 : 2.64.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the form" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the limitation to state, “a form.” Claim 25 is also rejected because of its dependency on the rejected base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2011/0182552 to Russert et al. (hereinafter “Russert”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0049994 to Schultheis et al. (hereinafter “Schultheis”) in further view of Nilsson et al. US Pub. No. 2012/0174931 (hereinafter Nilsson) in further view of 3M Science Applied to Life – Categorizing Surface Energy (https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/bonding-and-assembly-us/resources/science-of-adhesion/categorizing-surface-energy/) hereinafter 3M.
Regarding Claim 24, Russert discloses a light guide ([0087]- a light guide is formed by the combination of the sleeve 2 and adhesive 3), the light guide comprising:
at least two optical fibers ([0086]- FIG. 2 is a schematic sectional view, in which the individual fibers of the fiber bundle 1 are shown schematically) forming a fiber bundle (Fig. 2- fiber bundle 1) along at least a section of a length of the light guide([0087]- a light guide is formed by the combination of the sleeve 2 and adhesive 3);
a jacket (Fig. 2 - sleeve 2) surrounding the fiber bundle (Fig. 2- fiber bundle 1) at least partially or in sections,
wherein the light guide has a maximum outer lateral dimension (Fig. 2) of a cross- sectional area of the light guide([0087]- a light guide is formed by the combination of the sleeve 2 and adhesive 3) that is greater than a maximum outer lateral dimension of a cross-sectional area (Fig. 2) of the fiber bundle (Fig. 2- fiber bundle 1),
wherein the light guide has a proximal end (see Fig. 2 near reference numeral 6; [0087]- a light guide is formed by the combination of the sleeve 2 and adhesive 3) and a distal end (see Fig. 2 near reference numeral 8; [0087]- a light guide is formed by the combination of the sleeve 2 and adhesive 3); and
at least one terminated end face (Fig. 2 light exit surface 8) that has at least one of the proximal end or the distal end ([0070]- the invention concerns a sleeve for the termination of an optical fiber or an light guide fiber bundle;[0089]- the fibers can even assume different distances from the light exit surface 8 without this impairing the function of the termination),
wherein the at least one terminated end face (Fig. 2 light exit surface 8) has a maximum lateral outer dimension (Fig. 2) that is not greater than the maximum lateral outer dimension (Fig. 2) of the cross-sectional area of the light guide(Fig. 2),
wherein the jacket (Fig. 2 - sleeve 2) comprises a plastic selected from the group consisting of: a thermoplastic copolyamide, a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, a thermoplastic copolyester, a thermoplastic elastomer based on olefin, a thermoplastic elastomer based on urethane, a thermoplastic vulcanized rubber, and a thermoplastic elastomer based on crosslinked olefin, ([0068-0069] “The sleeve preferably consists of plastic, preferably a polymethyl methacrylate or a polycarbonate. In addition, poly(methacrylate methyl imide) (PMMI) has been found to be especially suitable. This material is distinguished by its especially high heat resistance.),
wherein the at least one terminated end face (Fig. 2 light exit surface 8) comprises a transparent plastic (Fig. 2 adhesive 3) in the form of a UV-curing adhesive or a UV-curing casting resin ([0025-0026, 0032, 0081, 0100] “For example, adhesives can be used which cure thermally or by irradiation with UV light. It is understood that in accordance with the invention, the values for the index of refraction refer to the adhesive in the cured state.”,
wherein the transparent plastic (Fig. 2 adhesive 3) has a refractive index that is matched to a core material of the at least two optical fibers of the fiber bundle ([0025-0026, 0032, 0081, 0100]), and
wherein the jacket (Fig. 2 - sleeve 2) has, at least in sections, a surface (Fig. 2 – surface of sleeve 2) with a surface energy of less than 40 mN/m. ([0068-0069] “The sleeve preferably consists of plastic, preferably a polymethyl methacrylate or a polycarbonate. In addition, poly(methacrylate methyl imide) (PMMI) has been found to be especially suitable. This material is distinguished by its especially high heat resistance.”)
Although Russert discloses wherein the jacket has a maximum outer lateral dimension that is greater than a maximum outer lateral dimension of the fiber bundle (Fig. 2 - sleeve 2), Russert does not expressly teach wherein the jacket has a maximum outer lateral dimension that is greater than a maximum outer lateral dimension of the fiber bundle by at most 500 um.
However, Schultheis teaches of a light guide (Schultheis - Fig. 4-sheathed optical waveguide 1) comprising: a fiber bundle consisting of a plurality of optical fibers (Schultheis - Fig. 4- bundle 5); a jacket enclosing at least a part of the plurality of optical fibers and/or the fiber bundle (Schultheis - Fig. 4- elastomeric material 24), wherein the jacket has a maximum outer lateral dimension that is greater than a maximum outer lateral dimension of the fiber bundle by at most 500 um (Schultheis - [0071]- The bundle 5 preferably has a diameter ranging from 0.5 millimeters to 12 millimeters; the dimensions of tube 7 may preferably range from an outer diameter of 1.0 mm and an inner diameter of 0.6 mm for a bundle of 0.5 mm diameter to an outer diameter of 20 mm and an inner diameter of 16 mm for a bundle of 12.0 mm diameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Russert so that the jacket has a maximum outer lateral dimension that is greater than a maximum outer lateral dimension of the fiber bundle by at most 500 um, as taught by Schultheis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of avoiding a fracture of typically brittle fibers ([0023] of Schultheis).
Although Russert discloses wherein the jacket comprises polyvinyl chloride or an elastomeric material selected from the group consisting of: a thermoplastic copolyamide, a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, a thermoplastic copolvester, an olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer, a urethane-based thermoplastic elastomer, a thermoplastic vulcanisate, a crosslinked olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer, and polyvinyl chloride ([0068-0069] “The sleeve preferably consists of plastic, preferably a polymethyl methacrylate or a polycarbonate. In addition, poly(methacrylate methyl imide) (PMMI) has been found to be especially suitable. This material is distinguished by its especially high heat resistance., Nilsson, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the jacket comprises polyvinyl chloride or an elastomeric material selected from the group consisting of: a thermoplastic copolyamide, a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, a thermoplastic polyester, an olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer, a urethane-based thermoplastic elastomer, a thermoplastic vulcanisate, a crosslinked olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer, and polyvinyl chloride (Nilsson – [0045] “tube 101, 201, 301 is made of a flexible material for a non-traumatic insertion into the oesophagus, through the pharynx. A suitable material for the tube 101, 201, 301 is a thermoplastic elastomer. A suitable thermoplastic elastomer may be selected from the group comprising styrene block copolymers (SBS; SEBS), thermoplastic polyurethanes, thermoplastic copolyesters, thermoplastic copolyamides, elastomeric polyolefines, thermoplastic polyolefine elastomer blends, vulcanized thermoplastic polyolefine elastomers, plasticized polyvinyl chloride, blends between elastomers, such as SBS, SEBS, etc., and plastics, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, ethylene vinyl acetate, etc., or any combination of these. MEDIPRENE.TM. is an example of a suitable material, being a blend of SEBS, paraffinic oil, and polypropylene.)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Russert in view of Schultheis in further view of Nilsson for the benefit of ensuring the jacket is made of a flexible material for a non-traumatic insertion” (Nilsson - [0045]).
Although Russert in view of Schultheis in further view of Nilsson to fail to explicitly teach the surface of the jacket has a surface energy of less than 40mN/m, Nilsson does teach that jacket may consist of a polypropylene. Therefore, 3M is used to simply define the surface energy of a polypropylene being 29 dyne/cm. (3M – Plastics graph). One skilled in the art knows 1 dyne/cm = 1mN/m. Thus Nilsson’s polypropylene jacket is less than 30mN/m. (3M – Plastics graph).
Regarding Claim 25, Russert in view of Schultheis in further view of Nilsson in view of 3M teach the light guide according to claim 24, wherein the UV-curing adhesive or a UV-curing casting resin have a penetration depth from the terminated end face into the fiber bundle that is up to a maximum of 10 mm (Russert - ([0033] “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, to reduce the proportion of total reflections, the base has a thickness of less than 1.5 mm, preferably less than 0.5 mm, and more preferably less than 0.3 mm. The fiber bundle is preferably inserted in such a way that the lowermost fibers are separated from the base of the sleeve by a maximum of 1 mm and preferably by a maximum of 0.5 mm. It has been found that adequate optical properties can be achieved in this way, even with a pot-shaped sleeve in which the base forms the light exit surface.” [0088] “As is clearly seen in the drawing, the fibers can even assume different distances from the light exit surface 8 without this impairing the function of the termination.” Examiner’s Note: Therefore as Russert illustrates the terminated end face of the fiber bundle 1 is a maximum distance of 1mm from the base of the sleeve (near reference number 8 in Fig. 2), then the portion of the fiber bundle 1 within the adhesive 3 - stiffened length - must have a depth into the fiber bundle of less than 10mm.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) claim rejections above. Thus Claims 2-5 and 7-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 13, and 17-19 were rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) claim rejections above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach among other features, A light guide comprising: a fiber bundle consisting of a plurality of optical fibers; a jacket enclosing at least a part of the plurality of optical fibers and/or the fiber bundle, wherein the jacket has a maximum outer lateral dimension that is greater than a maximum outer lateral dimension of the fiber bundle by at most 500 pm, wherein the jacket is an extruded jacket configured to abut the fiber bundle without an air gap between the jacket and the fiber bundle, and wherein the jacket comprises polyvinyl chloride or an elastomeric material selected from the group consisting of: a thermoplastic copolyamide, a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, a thermoplastic copolyester, an olefin- based thermoplastic elastomer, a urethane-based thermoplastic elastomer, a thermoplastic vulcanisate, and a crosslinked olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer; wherein the light guide has a proximal end and a distal end; a terminated end face on the proximal end and/or the distal end, wherein the terminated end face has a maximum lateral outer dimension that is not larger than the maximum outer lateral dimension of the jacket; and a stiffened length of the fiber bundle extending from the terminated end face to a depth into the fiber bundle of at most 10 mm, the stiffened length having a UV curing adhesive and/or a UV curing casting resin that has been cured, wherein the light guide does not have a sheath at the terminated end face, does not have the jacket at the terminated end face, and does not have a ferrule at the terminated end face.
U.S. Publication No. 2011/0182552 to Russert et al. in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0049994 to Schultheis et al. in further view of Nilsson et al. US Pub. No. 2012/0174931 in further view of Shinichi Shimotsu US Pub. No. 2010/0210911 in obvious combination teaches the above except for wherein the jacket is an extruded jacket configured to abut the fiber bundle without an air gap between the jacket and the fiber bundle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E MONAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm.
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 Carey can be reached on (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MEGAN ELIZABETH MONAHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights