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
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nielson; Jeffrey D. et al.; US 20140219609 A1.
With regard to claim 1, Nielson teaches a fiber optic cable assembly (see figs. 1-25), comprising:
a first connector 130 defining a first end of the fiber optic cable assembly and including a first connector interface having a first interface axis of symmetry (clearly shown in at least fig. 3 and fig. 8) ;
PNG
media_image1.png
547
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second connector 132 defining a second end of the fiber optic cable assembly and including a second connector interface having a second interface axis of symmetry (see at least fig.8 and 3; noting that the end faces the identical muti-core fiber cables has been switched to proper position for sing propagation accuracy; see at least parag. 0070: 0069-0070); a first multicore optical fiber 110 including a first front end face having a front end face core pattern and a first back end face having a back end face core pattern that is a mirror-image of the front end face core pattern; and a second multicore optical fiber 120 including a second front end face having the front end face core pattern and a second back end face having the back end face core pattern (see at least fig.8 and 3; noting that the end faces the identical muti-core fiber cables has been switched to proper position for the signal propagation accuracy; see at least parag. 0070: 0069-0070), wherein: the first connector is configured so that the first front end face of the first multicore optical fiber and the second back end face of the second multicore optical fiber are placed in the first connector interface to define, at least in part (shown in at least fig. 8, with the multicore optical fiber of fig. 3 ), a first connector core pattern having mirror-image symmetry about the first interface axis of symmetry, and the second connector is configured so that the first back end face of the first multicore optical fiber 110 and the second front end face of the second multicore optical fiber 110 are each placed in the second connector interface to define, at least in part, a second connector core pattern having mirror-image symmetry about the second interface axis of symmetry (shown in at least fig. 8, with the multicore optical fiber of fig. 3 ); wherein the first connector core pattern and the second connector core pattern are the same pattern (see at least fig.8 and 3; noting that the end faces the identical muti-core fiber cables has been switched to proper position for the signal propagation accuracy; see at least parag. 0070: 0069-0070).
However, though Nielson does not explicitly sate wherein the first connector core pattern and the second connector core pattern are “the same”, nonetheless, Nielson states that at least the optical fiber 110 is a multi-core optical fiber (clearly shown in at least fig. 3A,B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nielson’s fiber optic cable assembly having the optical fiber cable 110 and 120 with the same pattern configuration as shown in the optical connections between two multicore optical fibers in the pattern(s) shown in at least fig. 8 to produce a fiber optic cable assembly having an optical interface between two optical multicore optical fibers that meet all above limitations in order to position the optical multicore optical fibers in the connector(s) properly for optical signal propagation accuracy 0070: 0069-0070 and to reduce optical signal losses and/or to maintain polarity through one or more of the existing cabling standards.(parag. 0030) and to achieve predictable results.
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
5. (Original) The fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, wherein: the front end face core pattern has mirror-image symmetry about a fiber axis of symmetry in each of the first front end face and the second front end face, and the back end face core pattern has mirror-image symmetry about the fiber axis of symmetry in each of the first back end face and the second back end face (see fig. 8 and analogous arguments presented in claim 1 is applicable in rejection of this claim).
6. (Original) The fiber optic cable assembly of claim 5, wherein: the first interface axis of symmetry divides the first connector interface into a first side and a second side thereof, the second interface axis of symmetry divides the second connector interface into a first side and a second side thereof, the first side of the first connector interface has the same position relative to the first interface axis of symmetry as the first side of the second connector interface has relative to the second interface axis of symmetry, the second side of the first connector interface has the same position relative to the first interface axis of symmetry as the second side of the second connector interface has relative to the second interface axis of symmetry, the first front end face of the first multicore optical fiber is on the first side of the first connector interface, the second back end face of the second multicore optical fiber is on the second side of the first connector interface, the first back end face of the first multicore optical fiber is on the second side of the second connector interface, and the second front end face of the second multicore optical fiber is on the first side of the second connector interface (see figs. 3 and 7-24 encompass all limitations and analogous arguments presented in claim 1 is applicable in rejection of this claim).
7. (Original) The fiber optic cable assembly of claim 5, wherein: the first interface axis of symmetry divides the first connector interface into a first side and a second side thereof, the second interface axis of symmetry divides the second connector interface into a first side and a second side thereof, the first side of the first connector interface has the same position relative to the first interface axis of symmetry as the first side of the second connector interface has relative to the second interface axis of symmetry, the second side of the first connector interface has the same position relative to the first interface axis of symmetry as the second side of the second connector interface has relative to the second interface axis of symmetry ,the first front end face of the first multicore optical fiber is on the first side of the first connector interface, the second back end face of the second multicore optical fiber is on the second side of the first connector interface, the first back end face of the first multicore optical fiber is on the first side of the second connector interface, and the second front end face of the second multicore optical fiber is on the second side of the second connector interface (see figs. 3 and 7-24 encompass all limitations and analogous arguments presented in claim 1 is applicable in rejection of this claim).
. 8. (Original) The fiber optic cable assembly of claim 5, wherein: the fiber axis of symmetry of each of the first front end face and the second back end face is orthogonal to the first interface axis of symmetry, and the fiber axis of symmetry of each of the first back end face and the second front end face is orthogonal to the second interface axis of symmetry (see figs. 3 and 7-24 encompass all limitations and analogous arguments presented in claim 1 is applicable in rejection of this claim).
. 9. (Original) The fiber optic cable assembly of claim 5, wherein: the fiber axis of symmetry of each of the first front end face and the second back end face is parallel to the first interface axis of symmetry, and the fiber axis of symmetry of each of the first back end face and the second front end face is parallel to the second interface axis of symmetry (see figs. 3 and 7-24 encompass all limitations and analogous arguments presented in claim 1 is applicable in rejection of this claim)..
Response to Argument and Amendments
Applicant’s argument filed on 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s entire arguments are directed to fig. 3 as if the claimed invention is only taught and/or described by Nielson with regard to fig.3. Noting that the applicant does not explicitly state that Nielson does not teach the claimed invention rather focusses only to a single fig. 3 with arguments that this figure does not meet the claimed invention as the examiner has tried to interpret the claimed invention with “symmetry” and “asymmetry” described in the specification of the applicant for first multicore optical fiber end face vs. the second multicore optical fiber end interface in the first and second optical connectors to meet the claimed invention. The examiner has and had indicated to relevance of all figures 3-25 as well as indicated in the dependent claims to the applicant to see figures 3 and 7-25. As indicated above as how the applicant perceives the polarity of these a first connectors with the first multicore optical fiber end face vs. the second multicore optical fiber end interface in the first and second optical connectors is not in fig. 3, it is evident that the interfaces of at least two optical connectors with switched end faces as shown meet all limitations of each of claims 1 and 5-9.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
This action in response to applicant’s arguments made FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874