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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by US Patent Application Publication to Saito 5,673,345US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Barwicz 2016/0011372US and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Anderson 20140191427US and further in view of the US Patent to Psaila 11,099,329US.
In terms of Claim 1, Saito teaches an optical device comprising: a securing structure comprising (Figure 1): an optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a); a support body (Figure 1: 10) that comprises a first groove (Figure 1: within 100) that accommodates the optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a and 10); and a resin member (Figure 9: 400; Column 11, lines 30-40) that, inside the first groove (within 100) covers a boundary between a coating section (Figure 1: 303a and 302a; Figure 9: 400) of the optical fiber and a coating- removed section of the optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a) and secures the optical fiber to the support body (Figure 9: 400 secures fiber within 100), wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove partway along the first groove (Figure 1: groove formed by internal cavity within 100).
Saito does not teach a second groove that extends from a midway of the first groove in a direction intersecting the first groove away from the optical fiber; wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove into the second groove.
Barwicz does teach a first groove (Figure 1: 46) and a second groove (44) that extends from a midway of the first groove (Figure 2: 44 and 46) in a direction intersecting the first groove away from the optical fiber (Figure 2: 44 and 46); wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove into the second groove (the groove 46 is capable of performing the function of holding excess adhesive from v-grooves 46 since it function as adhesive well [0035]).
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 Saito to have a second groove that extends from a midway of the first groove in a direction intersecting the first groove to hold excess adhesive that may overflow. This modification allows the grooves adhesive overflow to be properly managed ([0035]).
Saito / Barwicz do not teach a fiber within a groove wherein light propagating in the optical fiber and leaking out from the coating removed section propagate through the resin member in the groove.
Anderson does teach a fiber cable (Figure 5: 17) placed in a groove (Figure 5: housing ferrule 23) a MT ferrule ([0008] MT ferrule) having a resin (Figure 8: 15); wherein light propagating in the optical fiber (Figure 8: 25-4) and leaking out from the coating removed section propagate through the resin member in the groove (fibers 25-1 through 25-4, within 308 have the outer jacket 17 remove as shown by Figure 5), wherein light leaks from the bare fiber portions having only cladding and core (25—1) and onto the resin epoxy 15 to cure the epoxy ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resin and cladding of the fiber within the channel of Saito / Barwicz to allow light to leak into the resin area to cure the resin material. This modification allows the resin to fix the fiber into the channel and prevent it from moving out of the channel. The act of curing also creates a strong mechanical bond to ensure proper alignment is made while the fiber is in the channel (See Anderson [0048-0049]).
Saito / Barwicz/ Anderson does not teach wherein the resin member has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of a cladding of the optical fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Saito to have a refractive index of the adhesive resin to be lower than the refractive index of the cladding layer to ensure proper light confinement is made to the fiber to reduce optical loss or leakage. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. A mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Saito / Barwicz / Anderson do not teach wherein a glass block optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber and wherein the glass block has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber.
Psaila teaches wherein a glass block (Figure 1: 4; Column 6, lines 1-20) optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber (Figure 1: 4 and 5a) and wherein the glass block (4) has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber (Figure 1: see lens portion 6a having a diameter larger than the endface of 5a; Figure 5 or 6: 6a compare to 8a which houses fiber 5a as shown in Figure 1). The lens having a wider diameter function as a collimating to reshape or redirect the light for coupling within a fiber array having multiple channels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the block 202 to have a diameter structure lens that is larger than the diameter of the fiber in order to function as collimators for each individual channels thus reduce light divergence and improve optical coupling.
As for Claim 3, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson/ Psaila teaches optical device according to claim 1, wherein Saito teaches the
As for Claim 5, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson / Psaila teaches optical device according to claim 1, wherein Saito teaches the first groove (100) is a u-shaped (Figure 1: 100)
As for Claim 6, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson / Psaila teaches optical device according to claim 1, wherein Saito teaches a recess that regulates a range in which the resin member spreads are disposed at a bottom of the first groove (Figure 6: groove 100 extend into 113a which contains a crack to control spreading at 120a).
In terms of Claim 8, Saito teaches Saito teaches an optical device comprising: a securing structure comprising (Figure 1): an optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a); a support body (Figure 1: 10) that comprises a first groove (Figure 1: within 100) that accommodates the optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a and 10); and a resin member (Figure 9: 400; Column 11, lines 30-40) that, inside the first groove (within 100) covers a boundary between a coating section (Figure 1: 303a and 302a; Figure 9: 400) of the optical fiber and a coating- removed section of the optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a) and secures the optical fiber to the support body (Figure 9: 400 secures fiber within 100), wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove partway along the first groove (Figure 1: groove formed by internal cavity within 100).
Saito does not teach a second groove that extends from a midway of the first groove in a direction intersecting the first groove away from the optical fiber; wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove into the second groove.
Barwicz does teach a first groove (Figure 1: 46) and a second groove (44) that extends from a midway of the first groove (Figure 2: 44 and 46) in a direction intersecting the first groove away from the optical fiber (Figure 2: 44 and 46); wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove into the second groove (the groove 46 is capable of performing the function of holding excess adhesive from v-grooves 46 since it function as adhesive well [0035]).
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 Saito to have a second groove that extends from a midway of the first groove in a direction intersecting the first groove to hold excess adhesive that may overflow. This modification allows the grooves adhesive overflow to be properly managed ([0035]).
Saito / Barwicz do not teach a fiber within a groove wherein light propagating in the optical fiber and leaking out from the coating removed section propagate through the resin member in the groove.
Anderson does teach a fiber cable (Figure 5: 17) placed in a groove (Figure 5: housing ferrule 23) a MT ferrule ([0008] MT ferrule) having a resin (Figure 8: 15); wherein light propagating in the optical fiber (Figure 8: 25-4) and leaking out from the coating removed section propagate through the resin member in the groove (fibers 25-1 through 25-4, within 308 have the outer jacket 17 remove as shown by Figure 5), wherein light leaks from the bare fiber portions having only cladding and core (25—1) and onto the resin epoxy 15 to cure the epoxy ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resin and cladding of the fiber within the channel of Saito / Barwicz to allow light to leak into the resin area to cure the resin material. This modification allows the resin to fix the fiber into the channel and prevent it from moving out of the channel. The act of curing also creates a strong mechanical bond to ensure proper alignment is made while the fiber is in the channel (See Anderson [0048-0049]).
Saito / Barwicz/ Anderson does not teach wherein the resin member has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of a cladding of the optical fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Saito to have a refractive index of the adhesive resin to be lower than the refractive index of the cladding layer to ensure proper light confinement is made to the fiber to reduce optical loss or leakage. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. A mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Saito / Barwicz / Anderson do not teach a laser device wherein a glass block optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber and wherein the glass block has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber; and the laser apparatus irradiates a workpiece with a laser light via the glass block.
Psaila teaches a laser apparatus (See Claim 9) having a glass block (Figure 1: 4; Column 6, lines 1-20), wherein a glass block (Figure 1: 4; Column 6, lines 1-20) optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber (Figure 1: 4 and 5a) and wherein the glass block (4) has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber (Figure 1: see lens portion 6a having a diameter larger than the endface of 5a; Figure 5 or 6: 6a compare to 8a which houses fiber 5a as shown in Figure 1); the laser apparatus irradiates a workpiece with laser light via the glass block (Figure 1: light outputs via 6a; Figure 9 wherein laser light is directed towards a workpiece; Figure 10: illustrate laser light being directed towards a workpiece, further Figure 7: 70/74 is a connector piece so light exiting out the connector must be directed at some king of workpiece). The lens having a wider diameter function as a collimating to reshape or redirect the light for coupling within a fiber array having multiple channels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the block 202 to have a diameter structure lens that is larger than the diameter of the fiber in order to function as collimators for each individual channels thus reduce light divergence and improve optical coupling. The usage of the lens as alignment tool for collimation in laser array are shown by the MT connector of Figure 7 having multiple channels. The usage of the lens into channels allows the device to be scaled high density connections applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added limitations to Claims 1 and 8 have been rejected in view of the prior art to Psaila as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication to Nagasaki 2022/0283388US teaches a laser optical device having multiple fibers being fitted into channels.
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
Prosecution Insights