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 Conrad 2017/0045700US in view of the US Patent to Kaukeinen (4,880,494US).
In terms of Claim 1, Conrad teaches An optical fiber arranging tool (Figure 4a) comprising: a base (Figure 4a: device 200 contain sidewalls frame 240) having a front end (Figure 4a: Side with element 234 or 220; see “front end” below), a rear end (Figure 4a: side with element 220; see “rear end” below), a top surface (top surface of 240 in within the recess; see “top surface” below), a bottom surface (bottom of 240), the base having a slot (Figure 4a: 230 within “front end” area shown below) provided across the fiber channel above the top surface and in communication with the fiber channel (Figure 4a: 230), and configured to receive a plurality of optical fibers (Figure 4a: 204) to be arranged in a single row (See Figure 5: 522) by the optical fiber arranging tool (Figure 4a); and a plurality of ribs (Figure 4a: 234 and 222) disposed within the fiber channel and being spaced apart from each other across the fiber channel (See Figure 4a), and extending toward the front end of the fiber channel, wherein the plurality of optical fibers are at a first pitch at a rear end (pitch of 222) of the plurality of ribs and are at a second pitch at the front end (pitch of 234) of the recessed channel, the first pitch being smaller than the second pitch (Pitch of 222 is smaller than 234).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conrad does not teach a fiber channel extending along a longitudinal axis from the rear end to the front end of the base on a plane different from a plane of the top surface.
Kaukeinen teaches an optical holder wherein one end has a pitch different than an opposing end, having a fiber channel (Figure 1: 29a-f) extending along a longitudinal axis from the rear end to the front end (Figure 1: 29a-f extending from top side 15 to bottom side 17) of the base (Figure 1: 16) on a plane different from a plane of the top surface (Figure 29a-f bottom recessed portion in indented from the top surface of 16). 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 Conrad to form channel structures in the middle portion of the base of Conrad (See Figure 4: 214) in order to improve the alignment of the fiber cables (See Kaukeinen Column 6, lines 20-40).
PNG
media_image2.png
414
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 4, Conrad teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first pitch is the same as a diameter of each of the plurality of optical fibers (220 that holds fiber as shown in Figure 5).
As for claim 6, Conrad teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the slot (Figure 4a: 230) is formed in a stacker at one end of the fiber channel (See Figure 4a: slot 230 functions as a stacker to holder multiple fibers at a one end) or wherein the slot is formed on an underside of a latch above the top surface (See 230 is formed on the underside of 230 which function as a latch to hold fibers in place).
As for claim 7, Conrad teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the slot (230) is provided on the front end or the rear end of the base (See 230 as shown in Figure 4a).
As for claim 8, Conrad teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the slot (Figure 4a: 230) is formed in a stacker at front end of the fiber channel (See Figure 4a: slot 230 functions as a stacker to holder multiple fibers at a one end) or wherein the slot is formed on an underside of a latch above the top surface (Alternatively element can be reinterpret to be formed on the underside of 230 which function as a latch to hold fibers in place on the rear end; The 1st requires the end of with structure 234 to be considered the “front end” to meet the limitations “in a stacker at the front end of the fiber channel”. In the second interpretation the examiner considers the side with element 234 to be “rear end” to meet the limitation of “the slot is formed on an underside of a latch at the rear end of the base” or Figure 5 wherein the slot is formed on the underside of the latch (top portion that’s above slot of 522, at the rear end of the base which is the side of 522. The orientation in which the examiner considers as the front or the rear end does not conflict with any other structures as recited; thus, the examiner considers this position to be proper.
As for claim 9, Conrad teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the fiber channel is recessed from the top surface (See channel in the middle recess from sidewall 240).
In terms of claim 2, 3, 5 10, and 11, Conrad teaches an optical fiber arranging tool of claim 1, and (Figure 4a) comprising: a fiber channel having a pitch of 250 (220 has a pitch of less 250 microns; 226 is shown to be larger than 220 thus having a width that larger than 250) at the front end and wherein the pitch at rear end is less than 250 microns ([0034] 220 is less 250 microns) side by side (See 222 each have a width smaller than 250 microns side by side) and wherein each groove in the plurality of grooves is configured to received only a single optical fiber (the examiner considers this limitation of “receiving only a single optical fiber” (See Figure 5: wherein the gap 220 can only hold a single fiber along widths or horizontal direction; since the gap of 220 is less 250 microns the fiber will have to smaller than the gap in order to fit inside the gap thus the fiber diameter is less than 250 micron) to be an intended used limitation in which the grooves of 226 or 220 are fully capable of holding a single fiber cable). Paragraph 0234 cites the openings 220 have a width that is smaller than width of two fibers thus allow fibers to slide into the groove in order to prevent fibers from sliding pass each other. Hence the fiber openings are capable of only receiving a single fiber per groove as recited.
Conrad does not teach a plurality of grooves disposed within the fiber channel and configured to receive a plurality of optical fibers at a first pitch from the rear end of the base, the plurality of grooves having a second pitch at the front end.
Kaukeinen does teaches a plurality of grooves (Figure 1: within gaps at 28a) disposed within the fiber channel and configured to receive a plurality of optical fibers (Figure 1: 12) at a first pitch from the rear end of the base (15), the plurality of grooves having a second pitch at the front end (17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date to modify the grooves with different pitches from the one side to an opposing to increase the packing density of the fiber holder by allow thinner stripped-down fiber to be used on one end without the jacket and all the exterior areas that may increase the fiber thickness.
Conrad teaches a base (Figure 4a: 240) having a fiber channel extending along the base from a rear end (back side of 240 at 220) to a front end (front side of 240 at the location of 226);
Conrad does not explicitly teach wherein the pitch is 250 microns at the front end or wherein the center-to-center pitch of 220 is less than 250 microns. However, since 220 can be less than 250 one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the pitch of the center-to-center pitch to be less than 250 microns to handle smaller fibers as needed. Having a pitch of 250 microns for the second pitch and 200 microns for the first pitch would allow for different density of fiber connections within the fiber channel. It would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pitch at 226 to fit different amounts of fiber base on its diameter. By increasing the pitch on the front-end thicker fiber bunders may be used before the individual fibers are broken out into smaller channels at 220. Thus, having a pitch of 250 or larger is ideal to fit higher number of fibers into the channels for larger connections density applications. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As for claim 12, Conrad teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the first pitch is the same as a diameter of each of the plurality of optical fibers on rear end (220 that holds fiber as shown in Figure 5).
As for claim 13, Conrad teaches the device of claim 10, further comprising a slot (Figure 4a: 230) provided across the fiber channel and configured to receive the plurality of optical fibers to be arranged by the optical fiber arranging tool (Figure 4a).
As for claim 14, Conrad teaches the device of claim 10, wherein the slot is formed on an underside of a latch or in a stacker at one do the fiber channel (Figure 4a: 230 and 232).
As for claim 15, Conrad teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the slot is provided on the front end or rear end of the base (Figure 4a: 230).
As for claim 16, Conrad teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the slot (Figure 4a: 230) is formed in a stacker at front end of the fiber channel (See Figure 4a: slot 230 functions as a stacker to holder multiple fibers at a one end) or wherein the slot is formed on an underside of a latch above the top surface (Alternatively element can be reinterpret to be formed on the underside of 230 which function as a latch to hold fibers in place on the rear end; The claims have 2 structural conditions which the examiner considers the prior art to both meet. The 1st requires the end of with structure 234 to be considered the “front end” to meet the limitations “in a stacker at the front end of the fiber channel”. In the second interpretation the examiner considers the side with element 234 to be “rear end” to meet the limitation of “the slot is formed on an underside of a latch at the rear end of the base”. The orientation in which the examiner considers as the front or the rear end does not conflict with any other structures as recited; thus, the examiner considers this position to be proper.
As for claim 17, Conrad teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the slot is recessed in the base (Figure 4a: 230 recessed from sidewall of 240).
In terms of claim 18-20, Conrad teaches An optical fiber arranging tool comprising (Figure 4a): a base (Figure 4a: 240) having a fiber channel extending along the base from a rear end to a front end of the base (Figure 4a: middle area of 240 is the fiber channel); and one of a latch (See Figure 5: 522) at the rear end of the base there being above a top surface (the latch is above the top surface of the recess walls and the to receive the plurality of optical fibers to be arranged, the slot (Figure 5: 522) in each of the latch having a width that is less than twice the diameter of each of the plurality optical fibers (vertical diameter of 522 [0034]); wherein the plurality of optical fibers are inserted into the slot (Figure 5: 522).
Conrad does not teach a plurality of grooves disposed within the fiber channel and configured to receive a plurality of optical fibers at a first pitch from the rear end of the base, the plurality of grooves having a second pitch at the front end.
Kaukeinen does teaches a plurality of grooves (Figure 1: within gaps at 28a) disposed within the fiber channel and configured to receive a plurality of optical fibers (Figure 1: 12) at a first pitch from the rear end of the base (15), the plurality of grooves having a second pitch at the front end (17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date to modify the grooves with different pitches from the one side to an opposing to increase the packing density of the fiber holder by allow thinner stripped-down fiber to be used on one end without the jacket and all the exterior areas that may increase the fiber thickness.
Conrad does not explicitly teach wherein the pitch is 250 microns at the front end. Having a pitch of 250 microns for the second pitch and 200 microns for the first pitch would allow for different density of fiber connections within the fiber channel. It would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pitch at 226 to fit different amounts of fiber base on its diameter. By increasing the pitch on the front-end thicker fiber bunders may be used before the individual fibers are broken out into smaller channels at 220. Thus, having a pitch of 250 or larger is ideal to fit higher number of fibers into the channels for larger connections density applications. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the prior art of Conrad cannot teach “a fiber channel” as recited in Claim 1 because the examiner admitted in the 103 rejection that Conrad does not teach a fiber channel (Remarks Page 1: 2nd Paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated above the examiner indicated that Conrad does not teach “a fiber channel extending along a longitudinal axis from the rear end to the front end of the base on a plane different from a plane of the top surface” (See rejection to claim 1 above).
The feature of a fiber channel extending front end and rear is not taught by Conrad. Conrad does teach “a channel”, the channel of Conrad does not extend fully across the base from the rear end to front end or vice versa. The secondary art was introduced to teach “a fiber channel extending along a longitudinal axis from the rear end to the front end of the base on a plane different from a plane of the top surface” wherein in the area channel 29a the recess area surface is on a different plane than the v-groove surface at 19 or the top surface of 19 for the purpose of controlling fiber pathway alignment from one end to another as shown in Figure 1 wherein the fiber pitch spacing are different.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The applicant argues that the examiner have not explicitly pointed out which side is the front end and rear end since the citation (Figure 4a: side of 234 or 220) was made in the previous office action (Remarks Page 1: 3rd Paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner considers either side 234 or 220 may qualify as “front end or rear end”, respectively. The examiner does not see any other structural limitations to disqualify this interpretation. However, for the purpose of clarity, the examiner has indicated an example of one interpretation shown below wherein “front end” is located on the side of 234 which is still consistent of the citation (Figure 4a: 234 or 220) as previously made. In this example, all structural limitations to claim 1 as previously indicated and cited are labeled in order to make rejection clearer for applicant’s understanding.
PNG
media_image1.png
461
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant further argues that the prior art is not combinable because pitch orientation is used in relation to input/output ends, and one would not be motivated to make such a modification because it created edges that cause the fiber to catch on (Remarks Page 2” 1st Paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner did not rely on the pitch feature of the secondary reference. The pitch limitation of Claim 1 was rejected over the primary reference. The examiner only relied upon the “channel extending from front end to rear end”. As for the edges that may causes the fiber to catch is also considered non persuasive because as shown by Figure 1 of Kaukeinen, the fibers are placed in a manner wherein the fibers are straight and do not catch with any of the edges. Lastly, the applicant argues the prior art ribs of Conrad are only located on the front end are not in the middle area. Claim 1 does not require ribs to be located in the middle. Further even if it did, the modification of the middle ribs area 28c would meet such a limitation. As indicated above, the additional structures in the middle would allow for the fibers to have set or define pathways for alignment purposes. The modification would also prevent fibers from being tangled because they have set pathways. The examiner considers the modification of having structures orientated in the middle portions of the base to define channel pathways is used to improve alignment to be reasonable because it only improves alignment of the primary structures of Conrad.
This action is therefore made FINAL for 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