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 .
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 1-6, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication to Kachmar WO2013/103502 in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Mullaney 2009/0060445US.
In terms of Claim 1, Kachmar teaches a fiber optic cable bending device (Figures 1-6) comprising: a first piece (Figure 6: 220) forming a first portion of a groove (Figure 6: 220 forms the right sidewall 230 to cavity 210 located on the right side groove) with a first radius of curvature and configured to receive a fiber optic cable (Figure 4: 500 within groove; Page 5, lines 20-30), a curve of the groove configured to bend the fiber optic cable (Figure 4: cavity 210 has a grove opening on the right and left side. The walls of 230 and 330 are both curved) to generate a first level of attenuation on the fiber optic cable (bends produce loss known as bending loss of which are present when a fiber is bent); a second piece (Figure 6: 300) forming a second portion of the groove (Figure 6: walls on 330 and 316 for the inner side walls to the two grooves within cavity 210), the second piece being slidably attached to the first piece (Figure 6: wherein 300 and 220 are slidably coupled to each other via its up and down insertion); and a tensioning mechanism (Figure 4: 400; Page 8, lines 20-30) configured to apply a pressure when the fiber optic cable is in the groove such that the bend of the fiber optic cable is maintained within the groove (See Figure 4: 400 and 500).
Kachmar does not teach a second groove with a second radius of curvature different from the first radius of curvature and configured to receive the fiber optic cable, a second curve of the second groove configured to bend the fiber optic cable toe generate a second level of attenuation from the first level of attenuation on the fiber optic cable.
Mullaney teaches circular body having multiple grooves channels to house optical fiber cable (Figure 7) wherein a second groove (Figure 7: groove that houses cable 164) with a second radius of curvature different from the first radius of curvature and configured to receive the fiber optic cable (Figure 7: 2nd groove houses cable 164, 1st groove houses 174; the 1st groove has a larger radius of curvature than 2nd groove since 164 is placed on the inside arc while 174 is place on the outside arc), a second curve of the second groove configured to bend the fiber optic cable to generate a second level of attenuation from the first level of attenuation on the fiber optic cable (Since the 1st groove at 174 is larger than the 1st groove at 164 the attenuation profile of the two bends will also be different due to varying radius of the bend). 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 device to contain a 2nd groove around circular arc body in order to house multiple inputs and outputs. The fibers are place in stack configuration on the arc body thus having different radius of curvature which correlates to different bending loss. The modification of having many arc grooves allows each fiber to have its individual channels and thus prevent tangling of the fiber cable.
As for Claim 2, Kachmar teaches the device of claim 1, the curve of the groove having a predetermined bend radius (Figure 4: opening of 210 on the left and right side defined by sidewalls).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 3, Kachmar teaches the device of claim 1, the tensioning mechanism including a spring (Figure 4: 400 is a spring; Page 8, lines 20-30).
As for Claim 4, Kachmar teaches the device of claim 1, the tensioning mechanism (Figure 4: 400) being configured to apply an opposing pressure (Figure 4: 400 applies a pressure on 500 within the groove) when at least of the first piece (Figure 6: 220 and 300) or the second piece is being slid to receive the fiber optic cable (Figure 6: when 220 is inserted via downward sliding motion into 300).
In regards to Claim 5, Kachmar teaches the device of Claim 1.
Kachmar does not teach the bend of the fiber optic cable causing an optical attenuation between 0.5 dB and 1 dB.
The attenuation profile of the fiber is a byproduct of the bend on the fiber within the groove. It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curvature dimension of the grooves in order to ensure proper coupling efficiency is met, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (in this case the curvature radius of the bend in groove 210 on the left and right side) of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As for Claim 6, Kachmar teaches the device of claim 1, the groove being configured to bend both bend-insensitive fibers and non-bend-insensitive fibers (all fibers inserted into the curve groove will have a bending orientation regardless of the type of fiber).
In terms of Claim 15, Kachmar teaches a method of causing an optical attenuation in a fiber optic cable (Fibers with bend will inherently have some degree of loss or attenuation), the method comprising: sliding a first piece (Figure 6: 220) of a fiber optic cable bending device across a second piece (Figure 6: 300) of the fiber optic cable bending device and against a tensioning mechanism (Figure 4: 400) to expose a groove between the pieces and having a predetermined bend radius (Figure 4: the groove 210 has a bending radius define by the curve shape of the groove and the tension member 400) to generate a first level of attenuation of the fiber optic cable (the level of attenuation is due to bending radius of the 1st groove as shown Figures 4 and 6); inserting and bending a fiber optic cable into the groove (Figure 4: 500 into 210); and releasing the first piece (Figure 6: illustrates the first piece being inserted; Figure 4 shows the first piece is fully inserted or “release” into 300) such that the tensioning mechanism (Figure 4: 400) applies a pressure to maintain the bend of the fiber optic cable within the groove (Figure 4: spring 400, groove 210, and fiber 500 bending orientation are maintain when fully assembled).
Kachmar does not teach inserting and bending the fiber optic cable into a second groove in the fiber optic cable device, the second groove having a second predetermined bend radius different from the first predetermined bend radius to generate a second level of attenuation on the fiber optic cable.
Mullaney does teach inserting and bending the fiber optic cable into a second groove (See Figure 7: groove at 164) in the fiber optic cable device, the second groove having a second predetermined bend radius different from the first predetermined bend radius to generate a second level of attenuation on the fiber optic cable (Figure 7: bending radius at 2nd groove 164 is different from 1st groove at 174). 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 device to contain a 2nd groove around circular arc body in order to house multiple inputs and outputs. The fibers are place in stack configuration on the arc body thus having different radius of curvature which correlates to different bending loss. The modification of having many arc grooves allows each fiber to have its individual channels and thus prevent tangling of the fiber cable.
As for Claim 16, Kachmar teaches the method of claim 15, the tensioning mechanism comprising a spring (Figure 4: 400 and Page 8, lines 20-30).
In regards to Claim 17, Kachmar teaches the method of Claim 15.
Kachmar does not teach the bend of the fiber optic cable causing an optical attenuation between 0.5 dB and 1 dB.
The attenuation profile of the fiber is a byproduct of the bend on the fiber within the groove. It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curvature dimension of the grooves in order to ensure proper coupling efficiency is met, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (in this case the curvature radius of the bend in groove 210 on the left and right side) of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As for Claim 18, Kachmar teaches the method of claim 15, the fiber optic cable comprising at least one of a bend-insensitive fiber or a non-bend-insensitive fiber (since the claimed limitations cover all types fibers both bend insensitive and non-bend insensitive fiber, the fiber 500 of Figure 4 will meet at least one of those types of fiber).
Claim 8-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kachmar WO2013/103502 / Mullaney 2009/0060445US as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, and further in view of in view of the US Patent to Udelhofen 4,665,590US.
In terms of Claims 8 and 13, Kachmar teaches a fiber optic cable bending device (Figure 1-6) comprising: a first groove (Figure 4: right groove of 210) formed on a first side (Figure 4: right side of 210) and by a gap between slidably attached first piece and second piece (Figure 6: 220 and 300 are slidably attached to each other during assembly), the first groove having a first curve (Figure 4: right side of 210) configured to bend a first fiber optic cable of a first size (500); and a second groove (Figure 4: left side of 210) formed on a second side (Figure 4: left side of 210), the second groove formed within the first piece (See Figures 4 and 6: left and right side of 210 forming two grooves) and having a second curve (left side of 21) configured to bend a fiber optic.
Kachmar does not teach a second groove with a second radius of curvature different from the first radius of curvature and configured to receive the fiber optic cable, a second curve of the second groove configured to bend the fiber optic cable toe generate a second level of attenuation from the first level of attenuation on the fiber optic cable.
Mullaney teaches circular body having multiple grooves channels to house optical fiber cable (Figure 7) wherein a second groove (Figure 7: groove that houses cable 164) with a second radius of curvature different from the first radius of curvature and configured to receive the fiber optic cable (Figure 7: 2nd groove houses cable 164, 1st groove houses 174; the 1st groove has a larger radius of curvature than 2nd groove since 164 is placed on the inside arc while 174 is place on the outside arc), a second curve of the second groove configured to bend the fiber optic cable to generate a second level of attenuation from the first level of attenuation on the fiber optic cable (Since the 1st groove at 174 is larger than the 1st groove at 164 the attenuation profile of the two bends will also be different due to varying radius of the bend).
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 device to contain a 2nd groove around circular arc body in order to house multiple inputs and outputs. The fibers are place in stack configuration on the arc body thus having different radius of curvature which correlates to different bending loss. The modification of having many arc grooves allows each fiber to have its individual channels and thus prevent tangling of the fiber cable.
Kachmar / Mullaney do not teach wherein the second grooves holds a second fiber having a second size.
Udelhofen teaches a cord retainer (Figure 7: 24) having two cords (Figure 7: 12) and wherein the retainer is made of up of two pieces (Figure 6: 24 and 40) that are slidably attached to other (see Figure 6 and 7); wherein the retainer contains two grooves (Figure 7: see channels along walls 54 and 56) to house the two separate cords.
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 fiber bending retaining device of Kachmar to use multiple fibers in order to allow the device the to support multiple fiber sources within a fiber distribution housing.
Kachmar and Udelhofen do not teach wherein the fibers having a first size and second size.
It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grooves and fiber dimensions in order to for the retainer to house different thickness fibers or cables. This allows the retainer to be compatible with different type of thickness fibers use in optical communication, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (the thickness of the fiber cable and the diameter of the groove) of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to Claim 9, Kachmar / Mullaney / Udelhofen teaches the device of claim 8, wherein Kachmar teaches further comprising a tensioning mechanism (Figure 4: 400) configured to apply a pressure when the first fiber optic cable (Figure 4: 500) in the first groove such that the bend of the first fiber optic cable is maintained within the first groove (Figure 4: tension mechanism 400 applies pressure to fiber 500 in groove 210 on either left or right side).
In regards to Claim 10, Kachmar / Mullaney / Udelhofen teaches the device of claim 9, wherein Kachmar teaches the tensioning mechanism comprising a spring (Figure 4: 400 and Page 8, lines 20-30).
In regards to Claim 11, Kachmar / Mullaney / Udelhofen teaches the device of claim 8, wherein Kachmar teaches further comprising a tensioning mechanism (Figure 4: 400) configured to apply an opposing pressure when at least of the first piece or the second piece is being slid to receive the first fiber optic cable (Figure 4: 400 applies pressure after first piece 220 and 2nd piece 300 is fully assembled).
In regards to Claim 12, Kachmar / Mullaney / Udelhofen teaches the device of claim 8, wherein Kachmar teaches the bend of the fiber optic cable (Figure 4: 500) being configured to maintained within the second groove through a manual pressure (Figure 4: 500 bend is maintained by spring 400; Page 8, lines 20-30).
In regards to Claim 14, Kachmar / Mullaney / Udelhofen teaches the device of claim 8.
Kachmar / Udelhofen do not teach the bend of the fiber optic cable causing an optical attenuation between 0.5 dB and 1 dB.
The attenuation profile of the fiber is a byproduct of the bend on the fiber within the groove. It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curvature dimension of the grooves in order to ensure proper coupling efficiency is met, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (in this case the curvature radius of the bend in groove 210 on the left and right side) of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claims 19, Kachmar teaches the device of claim 15.
Kachmar does not teach further comprising: inserting and bending a second fiber optic cable into a second groove formed within at least one of the first piece or the second piece; and applying a manual pressure to maintain the bend of the second fiber optic cable within the second groove.
Udelhofen does teach further comprising: inserting and bending a second corded cable into a second groove (Figure 7: wherein two cords are inserted into two separate grooves) formed within at least one of the first piece or the second piece (Figure 6: 24 and 40); and applying a manual pressure to maintain the bend of the second fiber optic cable within the second groove (the internal piece of 40 pushes against the groove sidewall similar to 330 or spring 400 of Kachmar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Kachmar to utilize two fibers set up having one fiber in each groove instead of 1 fiber for the purpose of scaling the device to handle multiple fibers. This will reduce the cost of implementation with a fiber distribution structure by doubling the amount of fibers each device can handle.
Kachmar and Udelhofen do not teach wherein the second groove having a second predetermine bend radius different from the predetermine bend radius.
Different fiber bending radius are needed for fibers with different thickness and attenuation profiles. Having different bending radius allows the device to be more compatible with fibers have mismatching dimension or attenuation loss profiles. The attenuation profile of the fiber is a byproduct of the bend on the fiber within the groove. It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the curvature dimension of the grooves in order to ensure proper coupling efficiency is met for fibers with different sizes in thickness or attenuation profile due to their bending loss, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (in this case the curvature radius of the bend in groove 210 on the left and right side) of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 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 amended limitations to claims 1, 8, 13, 15 have been rejected in view of newly cited prior art to Mullaney as detailed above.
This action is therefore made FINAL for the reasons detailed above.
Conclusion
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 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