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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 2/20/2026. Claims 1, 3 and 11 are amended, claims 21-22 are new and claims 1-5, 11-15, and 17-22 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. 10,162,146 Breidenthal (hereinafter Breidenthal).
Regarding claim 1, Breidenthal discloses an apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising: an optical component (lens 42, Fig. 3); and a redundant retention (structure proximal to cavity 55, Fig. 3) mechanism for fixing a position of the optical component relative to a surface (mechanical housing 41, Fig. 3), the redundant retention mechanism including: a recess in the surface (cavity 55, Fig. 3), the recess defined by an opening at the surface (distal end surface 46, Fig. 3), a base (right portion of surface of cavity 55 relative to Fig. 3) opposite the opening at a depth below the surface, and an undercut sidewall (walls of cavity 55, Fig. 3) extending from the opening to the base, wherein a bottom part of the optical component (portions except for distal 45, Fig. 3) is located in the recess, wherein a cross-sectional of the opening of the recess is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the base of the recess (Fig. 3); and an adhesive (adhesive 50, Fig. 3) filling the recess between the sidewall of the recess and the bottom part of the optical component.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Breidenthal discloses a cross-section of the recess has a trapezoidal shape, a linearly sloped sidewall, a nonlinearly sloped sidewall, or a stepped sidewall (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Breidenthal discloses an apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising: an optical component (lens 42, Fig. 3) having a bottom part (portions except for distal 45, i.e. portions that do not extend beyond the surface 46, Fig. 3) located in a recess (cavity 55, Fig. 3) in a surface (distal end surface 46 of mechanical housing 41, Fig. 3), the bottom part of the optical component including a groove (bevel 57 of lens 42, Fig. 3) into an outer surface (see below) of the bottom part of the optical component and the groove defining a reduced cross-sectional portion of the bottom part of the optical component (bevel 57, Fig. 3), the recess defined by an opening at the surface (cavity 55, Fig. 3), a base (right portion of surface of cavity 55 relative to Fig. 3) opposite the opening at a depth below the surface (Fig. 3), and a sidewall (walls of cavity 55, Fig. 3) extending from the opening to the base, wherein a distance (gap 59, Fig. 3) between a sidewall of the bottom part of the optical component and the sidewall of the recess is non-uniform due to the groove into the outer surface of the bottom part of the optical component (Fig. 3); and an adhesive (adhesive 50, Fig. 3) filling the recess between the sidewall of the recess and the outer surface of the bottom part of the optical component, including the groove.
PNG
media_image2.png
900
1360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Breidenthal discloses a cross-sectional area of the opening of the recess is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the base of the recess (annular channel 54 is larger than opening at surface 46, Fig. 3), and wherein the recess has a trapezoidal shaped cross-section, a linearly sloped sidewall, a non-linearly sloped sidewall, or a stepped sidewall (Fig. 3).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA 2296523 to DeMartino, et al. (hereinafter DeMartino).
Regarding claim 1, DeMartino discloses an apparatus, comprising: an optical component (an optical waveguide fiber 52, Fig. 3-8); and a redundant retention mechanism (Fig. 6) for fixing a position of the optical component relative to a surface (top surface of substrate 56, Fig. 6), the redundant retention mechanism including: a recess (First crosscut recess 60, second crosscut recess 64, and first longitudinal channel 58, Fig. 6) in the surface, the recess defined by an opening at the surface (top of substrate 56, Fig. 6), a base (Fig. 6) opposite the opening at a depth below the surface, and an undercut sidewall (Fig. 6) extending from the opening to the base, wherein a bottom part of the optical component is located in the recess (“positioning wan optical waveguide fiber 52 along longitudinal region 58 of void 84 preferably includes positioning fiber 52 inside of void 84”; pages 14-17), wherein a cross-sectional area of the opening of the recess is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the base of the recess; and an adhesive filling the recess between the undercut sidewall of the recess and the bottom part of the optical component (“Tapered cross section 78, such as the dove tail shape, provide further assurance that adhesive means 70 deposited in intersections 62 and 66 will stay confined and not able to move relative to the substrate”, Fig. 6, pages 14-17).
Regarding claim 2, DeMartino discloses a cross-section of the recess has a trapezoidal shape (Fig. 6), a linearly sloped sidewall, a non-linearly sloped sidewall, or a stepped sidewall.
Regarding claim 3, DeMartino discloses the cross-section of the recess has a trapezoidal shape comprising an isosceles trapezoidal shape and the recess comprises a dovetail groove (“a tapered cross section, such as a dove tail configuration”, Fig. 6).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2010250258 to Yamamoto, et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus, comprising: an optical component (precision sleeve 2 accommodating plug ferrule 8 with optical fiber 9, Figs. 1 & 4); and a redundant retention mechanism (sleeve holder 3, Fig. 1 & 4) for fixing a position of the optical component relative to a surface (end surface of sleeve holder 3 near end surface 2d of sleeve 2, Fig. 1 and 4), the redundant retention mechanism including: a recess (insertion hole 4 with space 10, Fig. 4) in the surface, the recess defined by an opening at the surface (Fig. 4), a base (bottom side 5, Fig. 4) opposite the opening at a depth below the surface (Fig. 4), and an undercut sidewall (undercut near bottom side 5, Fig. 1 & 4) extending from the opening to the base, wherein a bottom part of the optical component (sleeve 2 with ferrule 8 and optical fiber 9, Fig. 1 and 4) is located in the recess (Figs. 1 & 4), wherein a cross-sectional area of the opening of the recess is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the base of the recess (Fig. 4); and an adhesive filling the recess between the undercut sidewall of the recess and the bottom part of the optical component (“space 10 includes both a space 10a provided on the bottom 5 side of the insertion hole 4 and a space 10b provided on the opening side, and has a function as an adhesive reservoir”).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus, comprising: an optical component (precision sleeve 2 accommodating plug ferrule 8 with optical fiber 9, Figs. 1 & 4) having a bottom part (sleeve 2 with ferrule 8 and optical fiber 9, Fig. 1 and 4) located in a recess in a surface, the bottom part of the optical component including a groove (“a plurality of grooves 13 on the outer peripheral surface 2 b of the precision sleeve 2”, Fig. 4) into an outer surface of the bottom part of the optical component the groove defining a reduced cross-sectional portion of the bottom part of the optical component (Fig. 4), the recess defined by an opening at the surface (Fig. 4), a base (bottom side 5, Fig. 4) opposite the opening at a depth below the surface, and a sidewall (walls of insertion hole 4, Fig. 4) extending from the opening to the base, wherein a distance between the bottom part of the optical component and the sidewall of the recess is non-uniform due to the groove into the outer surface of the bottom part of the optical component (Fig. 4); and an adhesive filling the recess between the sidewall of the recess and the outer surface of the bottom part of the optical component, including the groove (“providing the groove 13, the bonding area is increased and the bonding strength between the precision sleeve 2 and the sleeve holder 3 can be improved. Since the plug ferrule 8 is inserted and removed in the axial direction, the groove 13 is provided in the direction perpendicular to the direction, that is, in the circumferential direction of the outer peripheral surface 2b, thereby improving the adhesive strength between the precision sleeve 2 and the sleeve holder 3 can be made.”).
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 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breidenthal as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,172,344 to Nishihara (hereinafter Nishihara).
Regarding claim 4, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the surface comprises a laminated material
Nishihara discloses the surface comprises a laminated material (“an insertion groove 1 for a multi-layer film filter, a multi-layer film filter 2, an upper plane substrate 3, an optical path 4, a lower plane substrate 5, and an optical adhesive 6”, Fig. 2A-2D).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a laminated material as taught by Nishihara with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to provide both a base and cover for an optical path embodied as a fiber.
Regarding claim 5, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the surface comprises a composite material
Nishihara discloses the surface comprises a composite material (“an insertion groove 1 for a multi-layer film filter, a multi-layer film filter 2, an upper plane substrate 3, an optical path 4, a lower plane substrate 5, and an optical adhesive 6”, Fig. 2A-2D).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a composite material as taught by Nishihara with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to provide both a base and cover for an optical path embodied as a fiber.
Regarding claim 14, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the surface comprises a composite material
Nishihara the surface is laminated, wherein a hole of a first layer of the laminated surface is above a hole of a second layer of the laminated surface, wherein the hole of the first layer is smaller than the hole of the second layer, wherein the holes form the opening (“an insertion groove 1 for a multi-layer film filter, a multi-layer film filter 2, an upper plane substrate 3, an optical path 4, a lower plane substrate 5, and an optical adhesive 6”, Fig. 2A-2D).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a composite material as taught by Nishihara with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to provide both a base and cover for an optical path embodied as a fiber.
Regarding claim 15, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the sidewalls are formed from different materials and one of the materials forms a stronger bond with the adhesive than the other material, wherein the sidewall formed from the other material is undercut or individually defines a recess.
Nishihara the sidewalls are formed from different materials and one of the materials forms a stronger bond with the adhesive than the other material (optical path of quartz and upper and lower substrates of “glass or silicon”; col. 3, ll. 40-64), wherein the sidewall formed from the other material is undercut or individually defines a recess (“an insertion groove 1 for a multi-layer film filter, a multi-layer film filter 2, an upper plane substrate 3, an optical path 4, a lower plane substrate 5, and an optical adhesive 6”, Fig. 2A-2D).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a composite material as taught by Nishihara with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to provide both a base and cover for an optical path embodied as a fiber.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breidenthal as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 10,698,165 to Kadar-Kellen, et al. (hereinafter Kadar).
Regarding claim 13, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the recess comprises a dovetail groove.
Kadar discloses the recess comprises a dovetail groove (Fig. 1 & 2(d)).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a dovetail groove as taught by Kadar with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to align and affix optical elements within a housing (abstract).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breidenthal as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 6,937,406 to Matsushima et al. (hereinafter Matsushima).
Regarding claim 17, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the adhesive comprises a multi-part epoxy, metal solder, a room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) epoxy, an ultraviolet (UV) cured epoxy, or a thermal cured epoxy.
Matsushima discloses the adhesive comprises a multi-part epoxy, metal solder, a room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) epoxy, an ultraviolet (UV) cured epoxy, or a thermal cured epoxy (col. 4, ll. 13-34).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an epoxy as taught by Matsushima with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to adhere strongly (col. 4, ll. 13-34).
Regarding claim 18, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the optical component comprises glass, crystal, plastic, metal, or ceramic.
Matsushima discloses the optical component comprises glass, crystal, plastic, metal, or ceramic (col. 4, ll. 6-12).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a glass lens as taught by Matsushima with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to use a lens material with old and well-known optical properties and machinability (col. 4, ll. 6-12).
Regarding claim 19, Breidenthal discloses the optical component comprises a lens or a reflector (Figs. 2A-2D).
Regarding claim 20, Breidenthal discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the surface comprises metal, ceramic, or crystal.
Matsushima discloses the surface comprises metal, ceramic, or crystal (col. 4, ll. 25-54).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide crystal surface as taught by Matsushima with the system as disclosed by Breidenthal. The motivation would have been to integrate optics into a semiconducting manufacturing environment and utilize effective adhesion strategies (Abstract & col. 1, ln. 7-39).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breidenthal.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Breidenthal discloses the adhesive is optimized to bond with a material of the optical component more strongly than with a material of the recess and the adhesive is optimized to bond with a material of the recess more strongly than with a material of he optical component (Fig. 3; col. 4 , ll. 45-60).
In the Specifications, Applicant discloses context by which to explain an adhesive “optimized to bond” in [0039]: “[i]n the event of an adhesive bond failure between the adhesive 311 and the optical component 312, the adhesive 311 may prevent the optical component 312 from moving relative to the base 313 in any combination of six dimensions”. Under a failure condition in which adherence is lost between the adhesive and a respective surface, it is necessarily true that the bond strength between the adhesive and the respective surface is lower than the bond strength between the adhesive and the other surface (i.e. other than the respective surface).
In Breidenthal, the adhesive 50, housing 41, and lens 42 are configured with first cavity 55 and second cavity 58 to specifically account for bilateral failure conditions – i.e. bonding failure between the adhesive and the lens and bonding failure between the adhesive and the housing. Breidenthal discloses the utility of these adhesive-filled cavities: “the first and second cavities 55 and 58 maximizes the retentive function of the adhesive material and minimizes its failure due to shock”.
While Breidenthal does not disclose a state in which the adhesive is optimized for one failure or another, Breidenthal discloses an adhesive and cavity structure that implies both conditions are within the scope of the design. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide adhesive optimized to bond with one of the optical component or recess material as taught by Breidenthal and the motivation would have been to account for failure conditions from extreme use scenarios in which damage occurs without failure of the overall device.
Examiner notes that the phrase “optimized to bond with a material … more strongly” is interpreted in light of the Specifications, including [0021], in which Applicant describes stronger bonds achieved via at least chemical primers. It would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that this increased bond strength does not stem from a higher molecular bond between the optical component and housing but between the optical component and primer and between the primer and housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a base of a recess is a continuous bottom surface opposite the mouth of the recess”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specifications, and while Applicant provides embodiments having a base extending continuously between sidewalls without interruption, there is no requirement of such continuity in the claims. The plain meaning of the term “base” is consistent with the Specifications and the Oxford English Dictionary defines it to mean “line or surface of a plane or solid figure on which it is regarded as standing” and “bottom of any object when considered as its support or as the part on which the upper part stands or rests”. The lens and adhesive are both supported by the structure relied upon in the rejections as matched to the claimed base.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that an artisan would understand the term “groove” to requires “a recessed channel or slot formed in a surface … defined by opposing sidewalls and a bottom surface”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specifications, and while Applicant provides embodiments having a base extending continuously between sidewalls without interruption, there is no requirement of such continuity in the claims. The plain meaning of the term “base” is consistent with the Specifications and the Oxford English Dictionary defines it to mean “a channel or hollow, cut by artificial means, in metal, wood, etc.”. The beveled surface of the lens allows the adhesive to flow into the hollow space between the circumference of a larger radius by providing increased distance between the housing sidewall and the lens circumferential surface. The bevel is a groove, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references generally relate to affixing optical elements within a structure such that adhesives fill grooves within recesses to prevent relative motion.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights