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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Sixteen sheets for formal drawings were filed August 18, 2023 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to for the following reasons(s):
Regarding claim 13, “into one of the microholes” does not have sufficient antecedent basis because no “microhole” was previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be examined as “into a microhole.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Childers et al. (US 2006/0115217 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 18, Childers discloses method of terminating a plurality of optical fibers with a ferrule, and a ferrule (10 in Figs. 1-4a) for an optical connector configured to accept a plurality of optical fibers, the ferrule comprising: a body having a front end (12) and a back end (14), the body extending in a longitudinal direction between the front end and the back end; a plurality of bores (16) extending into the body from the front end toward the back end, wherein each bore is configured to receive one of the plurality of optical fibers (paragraph 0025); a plurality of tapered dividers (28) wherein each tapered divider has: a first end (end of 28 facing 26b) adjacent to a respective bore of the plurality of bores and a second end (end of 28 facing 26a) proximal to the back end (ferrule at P2) of the ferrule; a cross-sectional shape at the first end that spans a circumference of the respective bore such that each of the plurality of bores are separated from each other (see Fig. 4a); and tapered surfaces from the second end to the first end (paragraph 0027); and aligning a plurality of optical fibers to extend though and be secured to the ferrule, wherein each optical fiber extends from the back end of the body and into a microhole (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 2, Childers discloses the back end of the ferrule includes an indicia (20) whereby the indicia provides a visual indicator of horizontal alignment of the plurality of optical fibers within the plurality of bores of the ferrule in Fig. 4a.
Regarding claim 3, Childers discloses the indicia extends from the back end of the ferrule to the second end of the tapered divider in Fig. 4a.
Regarding claim 8, Childers discloses adjacent tapered dividers have corresponding adjacent tapered surfaces (each tapered divider has a respective tapered surface, so adjacent tapered dividers will necessarily have corresponding adjacent tapered surfaces) that form an edge (edge is not further limited, e.g., a straight edge), wherein the edge is configured to prevent an optical fiber from being inserted into a non-corresponding bore.
Regarding claim 9, Childers discloses the second end of the tapered divider is flush with the back end (ferrule at P1) of the ferrule in Fig. 4a.
Regarding claims 10, 14 and 19, Childers discloses the plurality of bores comprises a first row of bores and a second row of bores spaced from the first row of bores, wherein the first row of bores are coplanar with each other and the second row of bores are coplanar with each other in Figs. 2-4a.
Regarding claims 11, 16 and 21, Childers discloses the first row of bores (16) and the second row of bores (16’) are separated by a spacer (material between 16 and 16’, see Fig. 4a) that is flush with the back end (ferrule at P2) of the ferrule, and wherein the spacer is integrally formed with the ferrule.
Regarding claim 12, Childers discloses the ferrule further comprises a window (18) formed on a top surface or a bottom surface of the ferrule, wherein the window extends into a lead-in section of the ferrule adjacent to the tapered divider in Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Childers discloses the plurality of optical fibers comprises a first ribbon of optical fibers and a second ribbon of optical fibers (groups of optical fibers can be considered a “ribbon”), wherein the first ribbon of optical fibers and the second ribbon of optical fibers are coplanar with each other; and wherein the first ribbon of optical fibers and the second ribbon of optical fibers are separated by an optical fiber spacer (material between 16 and 16’, see Fig. 4a); wherein the first ribbon of optical fibers, the second ribbon of optical fibers, and the optical fiber spacer are inserted into the back end of the ferrule (spacer constitutes “inserted” into back end during formation of ferrule such as described in paragraph 0035) that the first ribbon of optical fibers are inserted into the first row of bores and the second ribbon of optical fibers are inserted into the second row of bores.
Regarding claim 20, Childers discloses aligning the first ribbon of optical fibers includes aligning an optical fiber of the first ribbon with an indicia (20) on a back end of the ferrule (ferrule at P2); and wherein the aligning the second ribbon of optical fibers includes aligning an optical fiber of the second ribbon with the indicia on the back end of the ferrule in Fig. 4a.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4-7, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers et al. (US 2006/0115217 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Childers discloses the tapered divider has a height H1 at a first end and a height H2 at the second end, and has a width W1 at a first end and a width W2 at the second end in Fig. 4a. Childers teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the height ratio and width ratio. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed height ratio and width ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Childers discloses the tapered divider has a circular cross section at the first end. Childers teaches the claimed invention except for a square cross section at the second end. However, as Childers further discloses the openings may be any shape, including rectangular or square, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a square cross section at the second end in order to appropriately accommodate any type of fiber.
Regarding claim 7, Childers teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the angle of the taper. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed angle to facilitate insertion of the optical fibers, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Childers teaches the claimed invention except for an adhesive. However, adhesives used to secure optical fibers are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to supply an adhesive into the tapered divider from the window extending into a lead in section of the ferrule in order to produce a rugged and robust device while simplifying the manufacturing process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 April 2, 2026