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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 17, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0041731 (“CUNO”) in view of US 2002/0110331 (“FARRELLY”).
Regarding claim 1, CUNO teaches an optical component (110) comprising: a substrate (120) comprising a lens surface (123); a fiber coupling surface (121), and an array of lenses (122) at the lens surface; and an array of optical fibers (160) bonded to the fiber coupling surface and aligned with the array of lenses in a plane defined by the fiber coupling surface (FIG. 3), and an optical beam having an expanded beam diameter that is less than 100 microns at a surface of each lens of the array of lenses (par. [0103]).
CUNO does not teach using a laser beam such that each end of a respective optical fiber of the array of optical fibers and the fiber coupling surface are melted to permanently bond the respective optical fiber to the substrate. FARRELLY teaches using a laser beam such that an end of an optical fiber and a fiber coupling surface of a substrate are melted to permanently bond the optical fiber to the substrate (par. [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of CUNO by using a laser beam such that an end of each optical fiber and the fiber coupling surface are melted to permanently bond the optical fibers to the substrate, as taught by FARRELLY. The motivation would have been to provide a permanent bonding.
Regarding claim 8, CUNO teaches an optical connector (110) comprising: at least one optical component comprising: a substrate (120) comprising a lens surface (123), a fiber coupling surface (121), and an array of lenses (122) at the lens surface; and an array of optical fibers (160) bonded to the fiber coupling surface and aligned with the array of lenses in a plane defined by the fiber coupling surface (FIG. 3), an optical beam having an expanded beam diameter that is less than 100 microns at a surface of each lens of the array of lenses
(par. [0103]); and a ferrule (112) comprising: a front face (119) comprising an opening: a substrate slot (118), wherein the substrate is disposed within the substrate slot such that the lens surface is exposed by the opening (FIG. 3); and a fiber channel (116), wherein the array of optical fibers is disposed within the fiber channel (FIG. 3).
CUNO does not teach using a laser beam such that each end of a respective optical fiber of the array of optical fibers and the fiber coupling surface are melted to permanently bond the respective optical fiber to the substrate. FARRELLY teaches using a laser beam such that an end of an optical fiber and a fiber coupling surface of a substrate are melted to permanently bond the optical fiber to the substrate (par. [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of CUNO by using a laser beam such that an end of each optical fiber and the fiber coupling surface are melted to permanently bond the optical fibers to the substrate, as taught by FARRELLY. The motivation would have been to provide a permanent bonding.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, CUNO teaches that a diameter of individual lenses of the array of lenses is within a range of 100 microns to 250 microns, including endpoints (TABLE 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, CUNO teaches that a pitch between adjacent individual lenses of the array of lenses is within a range of 100 microns to 250 microns (par. [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, CUNO teaches that a center of each optical fiber of the array of optical fibers is aligned with a center of a corresponding lens of the array of lenses (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 7, CUNO teaches that the center of the optical core is misaligned by 100 microns or less with the center of the optical lens to angle the expanded beam by 15 degrees or less (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12, CUNO teaches that the substrate slot is wider than the fiber channel (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 18, CUNO in view of FARRELLY renders obvious the limitations of the base claim. The additional limitations appear to involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate the parts CUNO in view of FARRELLY, as set forth in the instant claim.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUNO in view of CONNELLY as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2005/0238308 (“HASEGAWA”).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, CUNO in view of FARRELLY renders obvious the limitations of the respective base claims. CUNO does not teach that the array of optical fibers is an array of fiber stubs. HASEGAWA teaches an array of optical fiber studs (FIG. 10;
par. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of CUNO with an array of optical fiber studs, as taught by HASEGAWA. The motivation would have been to facilitate fiber splicing.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, CUNO in view of FARRELLY renders obvious the limitations of the respective base claims. CUNO does not teach that the array of optical fibers is provided by an optical fiber ribbon cable. HASEGAWA teaches the array of optical fibers provided by an optical fiber ribbon cable (FIG. 6; par. [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of CUNO with an array of optical fiber provided by an optical fiber ribbon cable, as taught by HASEGAWA. The motivation would have been to facilitate fiber splicing.
Regarding claim 14, CUNO in view of FARRELLY and further in view of HASEGAWA renders obvious the limitations of the base claim. HASEGAWA further teaches an optical fiber ribbon cable comprising an array of ribbon optical fibers, wherein the array of ribbon optical fibers is spliced to the array of fiber stubs (FIGs. 6, 10; pars. [0049], [0053]).
Regarding claim 15, CUNO in view of FARRELLY and further in view of HASEGAWA renders obvious the limitations of the base claim. HASEGAWA further teaches a splice (43b) between an array of ribbon optical fibers and an array of fiber stubs (1c) that is (partly) within a fiber channel (of ferrule 48; FIG. 10A).
Regarding claim 16, CUNO in view of FARRELLY and further in view of HASEGAWA renders obvious the limitations of the base claim. HASEGAWA further teaches a splice between the array of ribbon optical fibers and the array of fiber stubs is (partly) outside of the fiber channel (FIG. 10A).
Regarding claim 17, CUNO in view of FARRELLY renders obvious the limitations of the base claim. CUNO does not teach that the front face of the ferrule further comprises a first alignment bore and a second alignment bore on opposite ends of the opening. HASEGAWA teaches a front face of a ferrule (48) comprises a first alignment bore (46) and a second alignment bore (also 46) on opposite ends of the opening (FIG. 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical component of CUNO with the first and second alignment bores of the ferrule, as taught by HASEGAWA. The motivation would have been ease positioning of the connector (par. [0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874