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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 11/4/2025 is acknowledged. In view of the amendments to claim 16 of Group II, claims 1-2, 4-13 of Group I have been rejoined with Group II. With regards to the traversal that Doyle does not alone teach the features in the independent claims, the Examiner includes the evidence in this Office action that with the combination of Gitis WO 0238336 A1 and Doyle US 4,693,035 for claim 1; and Gitis, Doyle US ,4587,768, and FR 2429648 A1 for claim 16, there is no special technical feature in at least these two independent claims. In view that there is no special technical feature in at least one independent claim, there is a lack of unit between groups III and (now) groups I-II. The restriction to group III is still proper. Claim 27 is withdrawn.
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 4, 11-13, 19, 22-23 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.
Regarding claims 4, 11-13, 19-22-23, the phrases “preferably” and "optionally" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 4-7, 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 the optical cables 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.
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 4, Gitis and D035 teach the invention as discussed above. Both references teach wherein the fixture and the platform are adjustably aligned parallel to one another [see figs.].
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) 2 is 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 Yang CN 04942695 A.
Re claim 2, Giits and D035 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach wherein the fixture comprises a plurality of clamps that clamp the plurality of optical cables in place, wherein the plurality of clamps each comprise a moveable tab that locks closed using magnetic force.
Yang teaches a fixture [fig. 11] comprising clamps for optical cables having a movable tab 33 that lock close using magnetic force 5.
Thus, D035 and Yang each disclose a fixture for clamping optical cables. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the clamps of Yang could have been substituted for the clamps of D035 because both serve the purpose of providing clamping of optical cables for a polishing/grinding method. 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 clamping the optical cables.
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 clamp of Yang for the clamp of D035 according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing clamping of optical cables for polishing.
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 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 Chivers US 5,459,564
Re claims 12-13, Giits and D035 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach optically inspecting a polished surface of the cables, and wherein the optical inspection includes inspection by camera that the camera relays inspection footage to a computer.
Chivers teaches camera 33 inspection for optical cables during polishing.
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 inspection camera of Chivers with the polishing apparatus of the combination of Gitis, in order to yield the predictable result of providing an inexpensive fiber and connector inspection measurement system.
Claim(s) 16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitis WO 0238336 A1 in view of Doyle US 4,587,768 (D768) and FR 2429648 A1 (FR648).
Re claim 16, Gitis teaches a polishing assembly [figs. 1, 5] comprising:
a) a platform 20 configured to receive a polishing film 24 and configured to rotate according to a dual orbital motion [“though rotation is shown here, other platen motions like orbital or linear are equally possible”];
b) a force gauge 70 functionally coupled to the platform 20 and configured to measure downward force applied against the platform [“mechanical force and torque sensors that may be connected with drive shafts of the rotating head and the platen”];
c) a mounting fixture [housing 90]; and
d) a movable arm [160, 164] configured to move the mounting fixture downwards to press mounted cables against the polishing film, upwards to pull the mounted cables away from the polishing film, wherein during polishing, the movable arm is configured to maintain the downward force within prescribed parameters in response to measurements by the force gauge [“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 cables, and a movable arm configured to move the mounting fixture to rotate circularly along a continuous circular path.
D768 and FR648 teach a polishing system [D768: fig. 1; FR648: Figs. 1-2]] comprising a mounting fixture [D768: 48; FR648: 16] configured to mount a plurality of optical cables [D768: “the arm 46 and fixture 48 may be designed to hold a plurality of fiber optic ends so that several such optic cable ends may be ground or polished in a single operation”; FR648: “used to polish plane surfaces on precision components i.e. optical fibre contacts“], and a movable arm [D768: 46; FR648: 23] configured to move the mounting fixture to rotate circularly along a continuous circular path [D768: between platforms 14 to 16; FR648: “[t]he table is imparted with simultaneous orbital and rotational movements, whilst the arm oscillates on a horizontal part circular path overhead”].
Thus, Gitis and D768/FR648, each disclose polishing assembly. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the arm and mounting fixture of Gits could have been substituted for either arm and mounting fixture of D768 or FR648 because both serve the purpose of providing clamping for optical cables. 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.
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 either the arm and mounting fixture of D768or FR 648 according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing rough and final polishing to optical cables in one operation.
Re claim 19, Gitis, D768, and FR648 teach the invention as discussed above. All references teach wherein the fixture and the platform are adjustably aligned parallel to one another,
Re claim 20, Gitis, D768, and FR648 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 21, Gitis, D768, and FR648 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) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitis WO 0238336 A1 in view of Doyle US 4,587,768 and FR 2429648 A1 (FR648) and in further view of Yang CN 04942695 A.
Re claim 17, Gitis, D768, and FR648 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach wherein the fixture comprises a plurality of clamps that clamp the plurality of optical cables in place, wherein the plurality of clamps each comprise a moveable tab that locks closed using magnetic force.
Yang teaches a fixture [fig. 11] comprising clamps for optical cables having a movable tab 33 that lock close using magnetic force 5.
Thus, D768/FR648 and Yang each disclose a fixture for clamping optical cables. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the clamps of Yang could have been substituted for the clamps of D768/FR648 because both serve the purpose of providing clamping of optical cables for a polishing/grinding method. 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 clamping the optical cables.
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 clamp of Yang for the clamp of D768/FR648 according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing clamping of optical cables for polishing.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitis WO 0238336 A1 in view of Doyle US 4,587,768 and FR 2429648 A1 (FR648) and in further view of Ling US 2003/0054741 A1.
Re claim 22, Gitis, D768, and FR648 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach 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.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitis WO 0238336 A1 in view of Doyle US 4,587,768 and FR 2429648 A1 (FR648).and in further view of Chivers US 5,459,564
Re claim 23, Gitis, D768, and FR648 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach an optical inspection station comprising a camera that relays inspection footage to a computer.
Chivers teaches camera 33 inspection for optical cables during polishing.
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 inspection camera of Chivers with the polishing apparatus of the combination of Gitis, in order to yield the predictable result of providing an inexpensive fiber and connector inspection measurement system.
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