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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the combined teachings of Howell (US 2012/0328252 A1) and Greiss et al. (US 2013/0058661 A1), have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Howell fails to disclose both a first single core optical fiber and a second multi-core optical fiber, and instead only discloses the splicing of a single core optical fiber to another single core optical fiber. Examiner agrees and a discussion of the same was included in the Office Action mailed 10/30/25.
As previously discussed in the Office Action mailed 10/30/25, see pages 7-8, Howell discloses the second optical fiber is a single core optical fiber, but also states the optical fibers may be of other types aside from single-core ([0056]). However, Howell does not explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein the second optical fiber being a multi-core optical fiber. Multi-core optical fibers are well-known in the art, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing a spliced multi-core optical fiber. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant’s arguments fail to address the obviousness of a multi-core optical fiber to one of ordinary skill in the art, and simply state multi-core optical fibers are not taught by either Howell or Geiss et al. For these reasons, while Examiner agrees a multi-core optical fiber is not explicitly taught by the Howell and Geiss et al., Examiner maintains the use of a multi-core optical fiber would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This Action is FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 2012/0328252 A1) and Greiss et al (US 2013/0058661 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Howell discloses an optical fiber alignment system 500 (Fig. 11; [0054]) comprising:
a reflective mirror 546 configured to simultaneously reflect a first illuminated image of a first single-core optical fiber 530 and a second illuminated image of a second single-core optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0055]-[0056]);
an image capturing system 528 configured to receive the reflected first and second illuminated images and to convert the first and second illuminated images into computer- readable image data (Fig. 11; [0055], [0057]); and
a data processing system (e.g., “fiber alignment module”) configured to simultaneously receive the image data from the image capturing system and to control movement of at least one of the first single-core optical fiber 530 and the second single-core optical fiber 532 based upon the image data (Fig. 11; [0057], [0060]).
It is noted, the image capturing system 528 moves relative to the first and second optical fibers 530/532 to allow imaging of both the end face of the first optical fiber 530 and the end face of the second optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0055]). Therefore, it is clear the reflective mirror 546 simultaneously reflects the first and second illuminated images, while the image capture system 528 consecutively receives the reflected first illumination image followed by the second illumination image. The same is sufficient to anticipate the claim.
Also, Howell inherently discloses a first illumination system comprising at least one light source configured to illuminate the first optical fiber 530 and a second illumination system comprising at least one light source configured to illuminate the second optical fiber 532, since Howell discloses separate lights are launched into end faces of the first and second optical fibers (Fig. 11; [0057]).
However, Howell does not disclose the structure of the second illumination system, and therefore fails to disclose the second illumination system configured to at least partially surround the second optical fiber.
Greiss et al. discloses an optical fiber alignment system for aligning a first and second optical fiber comprising first and second illumination systems 20a and 20b, the first illumination system 20a comprising a light source 22a/24a/26a configured to illuminate the first optical fiber 10, and the second illumination system 20b comprising a light source 22b/24b/26b configured to at least partially radially surrounds the second optical fiber 10 to illuminate the optical fiber (Fig. 2A; [0027]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as Geiss et al. discloses the second illumination system enables efficient and effective connection between fibers (Geiss et al.: [0007]).
Finally, Howell discloses the optical fibers may be of other types aside from single-core ([0056]), Howell does not explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein the second optical fiber being a multi-core optical fiber.
Multi-core optical fibers are well-known in the art, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing a spliced multi-core optical fiber. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While the features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“Apparatus claims cover what a claim is, not what a claim does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
Re. Claim 2, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses a motion stage configured to move the first fiber relative 530 to the second fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0054]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 3, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses the motion stage is configured to rotate the first fiber 530 relative to the second fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0054]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 4, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses the motion stage is configured to move the first fiber relative to the second fiber along an X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis (Fig. 11; [0054]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 6, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Geiss et al. also discloses the second illumination system is configured to illuminate the second optical fiber from an outer surface of the second optical fiber (e.g., from an end face) radially inwards towards at least one core of the second optical fiber (Fig. 2A). It is noted, the claimed term “radially inwards” is not defined with respect to an axis, and therefore is met by arrangements wherein a light source launches a signal colinear to the optical fiber core for entry into the fiber core via an end face. The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 7, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses the reflective mirror 546 is configured to move from a first position to a second position (e.g., up/down as shown in Fig. 11), the reflective mirror 546 being disposed between the first fiber 530 and the second fiber 532 in the first position, and the second position being adjacent to the first position (Fig. 11; [0055]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 8, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses the reflective mirror 546 comprises a first reflective surface 547 and a second reflective surface 549 (Fig. 11; [0055]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 9, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses the first reflective surface 547 is configured to reflect the first illuminated image of the first optical fiber 530 and the second reflective surface 549 is configured to reflect the second illuminated image of the second optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0055]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 10, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses the reflective mirror 546 comprises a triangular shape (Fig. 11). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 11, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell also discloses a display unit configured to display the first illuminated image and the second illuminated image (e.g., display unit displays the images of Figs. 3-7; [0009]-[0013]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 12, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell discloses the image capturing system 528 comprises a camera configured to capture the first illuminated image and the second illuminated image (Fig. 11; [0055]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 13, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell discloses the first optical fiber 530 disposed in the optical fiber alignment system 500, the first optical fiber 530 being a single-core optical fiber (Fig. 12; [0056]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 14, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment system as discussed above. Howell discloses the second optical fiber is a single core optical fiber.
While Howell discloses the optical fibers may be of other types aside from single-core ([0056]), Howell does not explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein the second optical fiber being a multi-core optical fiber.
As previously discussed, multi-core optical fibers are well-known in the art, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing a spliced multi-core optical fiber. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 15, Howell discloses a method of aligning optical fibers, the method comprising:
illuminating a first single-core optical fiber 530 and a second single-core optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0054], [0056]);
simultaneously reflecting illuminated images of the first and second optical fibers 530/532 onto an image capturing system 528 (Fig. 11; [0055]);
converting the reflected images to computer-readable image data with the image capturing system 528 (Fig. 11; [0055], [0057]);
processing the image data with a data processing system (e.g., “fiber alignment module”) to determine an alignment error of the first and second optical fibers 530/532 (Fig. 11; [0057], [0060]); and
based upon the alignment error, moving the first optical fiber 530 relative to the second optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0060]).
Also, Howell inherently discloses positioning a first illumination system comprising at least one light source configured to illuminate the first optical fiber 530 and positioning a second illumination system comprising at least one light source configured to illuminate the second optical fiber 532, since Howell discloses separate lights are launched into end faces of the first and second optical fibers (Fig. 11; [0057]).
However, Howell does not disclose the structure of the second illumination system, and therefore fails to disclose the second illumination system configured to at least partially surround the second optical fiber.
Greiss et al. discloses an optical fiber alignment system for aligning a first and second optical fiber comprising first and second illumination systems 20a and 20b, the first illumination system 20a comprising a light source 22a/24a/26a configured to illuminate the first optical fiber 10, and the second illumination system 20b comprising light source 22b/24b/26b configured to at least partially radially surrounds the second optical fiber 10 to illuminate the optical fiber (Fig. 2A; [0027]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as Geiss et al. discloses the second illumination system enables efficient and effective connection between fibers (Geiss et al.: [0007]).
Finally, Howell discloses the optical fibers may be of other types aside from single-core ([0056]), Howell does not explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein the second optical fiber being a multi-core optical fiber.
Multi-core optical fibers are well-known in the art, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing a spliced multi-core optical fiber. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 16, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment method as discussed above. Howell also discloses moving the reflective mirror 546 from a first position to a second position (e.g., up/down as shown in Fig. 11), the reflective mirror 546 being disposed between the first optical fiber 530 and the second optical fiber 532 in the first position, and the second position being adjacent to the first position (Fig. 11; [0055]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 17, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment method as discussed above. Howell discloses the reflective mirror 528 is in the second position (e.g., lowered position), moving the first optical fiber 530 towards the second optical fiber 532 to couple the fibers together ([0060]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 18, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment method as discussed above. Howell discloses moving the first optical fiber 530 relative to the second optical fiber 532 based upon the alignment error comprises rotating the first optical fiber 530 relative to the second optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0054]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 19, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment method as discussed above. Howell discloses moving the first optical fiber 530 relative to the second optical fiber 532 based upon the alignment error comprises moving the first optical fiber 530 along at least one of an X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis relative to the second optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0054]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 20, Howell and Geiss et al. renders obvious the optical fiber alignment method as discussed above. Howell discloses moving the first optical fiber 530 relative to the second optical fiber 532 if the alignment error is below a predetermined threshold, for example to splice the first optical fiber 530 to the second optical fiber 532 (Fig. 11; [0060]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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 on (571) 272-2397. 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 1/27/26