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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has fully considered the argument about differences in polishing optical cables and wafers. The main argument of Applicant is that there is no reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination and that there is no conclusion of obviousness without undue experimentation. It is first noted that the latter argument is not persuasive as both of the prior arts used in the rejection teach operable devices.
With respect to the argument of reasonable expectations, we need to analyze the similarities and differences of the prior arts against the claimed invention. Gitis similarities can be found in the rejections below. D035 teaches optical cable polishing with a polishing film [platform 12], pressing the optical cables, and (c) monitoring and (d) adjusting the downward force applied to a prescribed tolerance using stop member 86 to monitor and adjust the downwardly force, “the downwardly moving head 20 applies a positive force to drive the connector holder 30 down to the point where the diamond-tipped stop members 86 firmly engage the rotating platen 12”]. The only difference between Gitis and the claimed invention is the use of optical cables, while the only difference between D035 and the claimed invention is the force gauge [if one does not consider stop member 86 a force gauge]. D035 already monitors and adjust force with the stop member. Obviousness does not require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., a reasonable expectation of obtaining similar properties. See, e.g., In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). It is the Office position, that given the importance of force measurement in the optical cable polishing systems, there would be a reasonable expectation of success for the skilled artisan to substitute the arm and mounting fixture of Gitis for the mounting fixture of D035 according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing polishing and force gauge to optical cables.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 16-17, 19-21, 23, 27-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as the amendment are drawn to a nonelected Group III drawn to the specifics of the mounting fixture, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 2, 16-17, 19-21, 23, 27-28 are withdrawn.
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(s) 1, 5-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitis WO 0238336 A1 in view of Doyle US 4,693,035 (D035).
Re claim 1, Gitis teaches a method of polishing optical cables, the method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a polishing assembly loaded with a polishing film 24 [figs. 1, 5], the polishing assembly comprising a platform 20 to which the polishing film 24 is loaded, the platform 20 configured to rotate according to a dual orbital motion [“though rotation is shown here, other platen motions like orbital or linear are equally possible”] and coupled to a force gauge 70 that measures downward force applied against the platform, a mounting fixture 36, the mounting fixture attached to a movable arm [160, 164]] that moves the mounting fixture towards and away from the platform;
c) pressing against the rotating polishing film while simultaneously monitoring the downward force applied against the platform, and
d) adjusting the downward force to remain within a prescribed tolerance [“mechanical force and torque sensors that may be connected with drive shafts of the rotating head and the platen… their measurement data are processed and analyzed together by a processing and control units for obtaining accurate and reliable results”].
Gitis does not teach the mounting fixture is configured to mount a plurality of optical cable and mounting a plurality of optical cables to the mounting fixture.
D035 teaches a mounting fixture 28 configured to mount a plurality of optical cable and mounting a plurality of optical cables to the mounting fixture [fig. 3A] for a polishing assembly [fig. 1A-1B].
Thus, Gitis and D035, each disclose a polishing assembly. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the mounting fixture of Gitis could have been substituted for the mounting fixture of D035 because both serve the purpose of providing a polishing assembly for substrates that need polishing. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing optical cable polishing with force measurement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the arm and mounting fixture of Gitis for the mounting fixture of D035 according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing polishing to optical cables.
Re claim 5, Gitis and D035 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to explicitly teach wherein rotation of the polishing film increases gradually. However, D035 teaches the speed of the polishing film is controlled [Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to gradually increase the rotation of the polishing film in the combination since it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. MPEP 2144.05 II A. In this case the general conditions of controlling speed is disclosed, hence. it would have been obvious to discover the optimum workable conditions of the speed by routine experimentation.
Re claim 6, Gitis and D035 teach the invention as discussed above. Gitis further teaches wherein no one cable repeats its same position on the polishing film during polishing [due to the orbital rotation].
Re claim 7, Gitis and D035 teach the invention as discussed above. D035 further teaches wherein the arm presses the cables against the rotating polishing film gradually to polish the cables at a lower pressure followed by polishing the cables at a higher pressure [“[d]uring polishing…connector holder plate 30 gradually descends relative to rotating platen 12”].
Re claim 9, Gitis and D035 teach the invention as discussed above. Gitis further teaches wherein the force gauge 70 is in physical- force communication with the platform, thereby measuring pressure directly applied to the platform.
Re claim 10, Giits and D035 teach the invention as discussed above. Gitis further teaches wherein the downward force is adjusted by a feedback mechanism that functionally couples the force gauge to the arm [fig. 5].
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitis WO 0238336 A1 in view of Doyle US 4,693,035 (D035) and in further view of Bianchi 6,918,816
Re claim 8, Giits and D035 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach wherein the higher pressure is about 0.5-1 lb. of pressure per cable
Bianchi teaches wherein the higher pressure is about 0.5-1 lb. of pressure per cable [“compress a polishing film against the end face 13 of each connector 10 with a desired force (e.g., 3/4 lb”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure of about 0.5-1 lb since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Gitis WO 0238336 A1 in view of Doyle US 4,693,035 (D035) and in further view of Ling US 2003/0054741 A1.
Re claim 11, Giits and D035 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach washing the polished optical cables in an ultrasonic bath
However, Ling teaches ultrasonic bath for optical cables [¶ 11, “the equipment of the present invention further comprises one or more cleansing devices for cleansing the workpiece ends at the time when the workpiece ends are disengaged with said elastic grinding surfaces. Preferably, said cleansing devices are brushing surfaces, ultrasonic cleansing devices, or a combination of said brushing surfaces and said ultrasonic cleansing devices”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ultrasonic bath of Ling with the combination of Gitis in order to yield the predictable result of cleansing the optical cables.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show wherein the fixture and the platform are adjustably aligned parallel to one another by way of 4-way adjustment dials that adjust the fixture and platform; or inspecting a polished surface of the cables, and repeating steps (c) and (d) using a series of different polishing films until the polished surface meets a final acceptable standard in combination with the other claim limitations.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights