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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to further clarify and expressly recite limitations that distinguish over cited prior art. The new limitations are “a retainer secured to the mount, the retainer comprising a ring-shaped wall portion” with a plurality of flexible “metal members” whereby each of these metal members have “a first end integrally extending from the ring-shaped wall portion” while there is “a free end defining a bearing surface for supporting the optical element.” Additionally, the third paragraph of the claim recites “joining the optical element to the bearing surfaces such that the optical element is held by the mount and decoupled from mechanical stresses and thermal strains by the flexible metal members.”
Applicant argues that the references used in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Trunz (EP 1026532) in view of DeRosa (US 2015/0093080) and used in the rejection of claim 19 over Trunz in view of DeRosa and Watson (EP 1081521) do not teach the claimed decoupling arrangement.
In particular, Trunz is relied upon to teach tabs that support a lens and a rigid connection between the lens and the tabs but does not disclose or suggest the decoupling for the optical element from mechanical stresses and thermal strains by the flexible metal members. The Office also does not identify any flexure of the tabs in Trunz providing the claimed decoupling functionality recited in the claim.
DeRosa is relied on solely for disclosing an inorganic adhesive composition used to secure an optical component, but is entirely silent as to flexible metal member that isolate an optical element from mechanical stresses and thermal strains.
Amended claim 1 requires a specific cooperative relationship among the optical element, the inorganic adhesive composition, the bearing surfaces and the flexible metal members with the optical element joined to the bearing surface and held to the mount while being decoupled from mechanical stresses and thermal strains by eh flexible metal members (Applicant arguments/remarks 07/21/2026 pp.6-8).
The examiner counter-argues that from a broadest reasonable interpretation, Trunz discloses clearly a plurality of flexible members that are metal and are integrally extending from a ring-shaped wall portion that comprises a retainer. Trunz describes this configuration as a membrane ring with a multitude of tabs projecting inwards from its inner circumference (Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0013] membrane ring – 4 tabs – 6 which is made of a springy material which is made from a very thin sheet of metal). Moreover, Trunz further describes that the retainer achieves a stress and deformation-free mounting of the optical element due to the high elasticity of the membrane ring and the tabs (Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0016] lens – 7 membrane ring – 4 tabs – 6). Therefore, the examiner does not agree that this retainer itself is “rigid” nor that the retainer is not decoupling functionality for isolate or decoupling the lens form mechanical stresses and thermal strains, especially considering that Trunz describes the mount configuration as “stress- and deformation-free mounting.” (paragraph [0016[).
The applicant further argues that the combination of Trunz and DeRosa does not yield the claimed limitations. At most combining Trunz with DeRosa results in the support structure of Trunz utilizing DeRosa’s inorganic adhesive composition in place of another attachment mechanism. The claim now recites that the inorganic adhesive composition be disposed on the bearing surfaces and joining optical element to the bearing surfaces “such that the optical element held by the mount decoupled from mechanical stresses and thermal strains by the flexible metal members.” While the Office relies on Trunz for flexible support members and relies on DeRosa for an inorganic adhesive composition,
neither of these references teaches the claimed cooperative relationship among the flexible metal members, the bearing surfaces, the inorganic adhesive composition and the optical element. While the Office identifies a reason why one might employ DeRosa’s inorganic adhesive composition, because of the purported advantages including stability and coefficient of thermal expansion considerations, the combination still fails to teach or suggest the amended limitation requiring that the optical element be joined to the bearing surface of the flexible metal members such that the optical element is held by the mount and decoupled from mechanical stresses and thermal strains by the flexible metal members (Applicant arguments/remarks 07/21/2026 pp.8-10).
The examiner counter-argues to the applicant’s maintaining that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations of claim 1, there is knowledge available to one with ordinary skill in the art in combination and there is motivation to do so. It is not necessary that the motivation be explicit nor that the prior art suggest expressly or in so many words the changes or possible improvements the inventor made but that the knowledge be clearly present In re Sernaker, 217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Here, one with ordinary skill would consider an inorganic adhesive composition where it is advantageous to use this inorganic adhesive composition disposed on the bearing surface to secure the optical element to the mount as suggested by both Trunz and DeRosa (Trunz, paragraph [0017] joining process is achieved with sufficient accuracy and stability) (DeRosa, Fig. 2, paragraph [0014] inorganic adhesive composition – 40 secures an optical fiber in a fiber-receiving passage – 30 and inner surface of the ferrule – 12) to hold the optical element to the mount because the precursors are stable at ambient conditions for at least a month without significant degradation and, in some embodiments, the inorganic adhesive compositions have a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) may be similar to the CTE of the bearing surface of the metallic flexible members (paragraphs [0028] [0036]).
Therefore, the examiner maintains this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the polar aprotic solvents" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this plural recitation in the claim.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider that “a polar aprotic solvent” is selected from the group consisting of the polar aprotic solvents as recited in claim 6.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trunz (EP 1 026 532 A1) IDS 09/18/2023 with machine translation in view of DeRosa (US 2015/0093080 A1). See also evidence: “Ferrule.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ferrule. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Trunz discloses an assembly for mounting an optical element in an optical system (abs), the assembly comprising:
a mount configured for rigid attachment to the optical system (Fig. 1 paragraphs [0008] [0013] membrane-like joining element to create a rigid, moment-transmitting connection, ring-shaped socket – 1 with ring shoulder – 2 has a support contour – 3);
a retainer secured to the mount, the retainer comprising a ring-shaped wall portion and a plurality of flexible metal members (Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0006] [0013] elastic connections, tabs – 6 made of springy material made from a very thin sheet of metal), each flexible metal member having a first end integrally extending from the ring-shaped wall portion Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0013] membrane ring – 4 tabs – 6 which is made of a springy material which is made into a very thin sheet of metal; tabs are integrally connected to the membrane ring – 4) and a free end defining a bearing surface for supporting the optical element, the free end being radially inward of the mount (Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0013] [0016] membrane ring – 4 where a multitude of tabs – 6 project inwards from inner circumference, with centering collar – 6 serves for a stop and acting as one end of a bearing surface of a flexible member; stress and deformation-free mounting of the lens – 7 can be achieved due to the high elasticity of the membrane ring – 4 or tabs – 6),
Trunz further discloses joining the optical element to the bearing surfaces such that the optical element is held by the mount and decoupled from mechanical stresses and thermal strains by the flexible metal member Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0016] lens – 7 membrane ring – 4 tabs – 6 whereby a stress-and deformation-free mounting of the lens – 7 can be achieved due to the high elasticity of the membrane ring – 4 or the tabs – 6).
However, Trunz is silent as to an inorganic adhesive composition disposed on the bearing surfaces.
DeRosa discloses optical connectors for fiber optic fibers, lens or other structures using inorganic adhesives where the optical connector is ring shaped (Fig. 1 abs, paragraph [0003] ferrule which is usually a ring made of metal around a slender shaft, from Merriam Webster on-line dictionary definition cited above); where the inorganic adhesive is configured to secure an optical element to the mount and such that the optical element is held by a mount for the optical element (Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0014] fiber receiving passage – 30 defined inner surface of the ferrule – 12 contacted with an inorganic adhesive composition – 40 to secure an optical fiber disposed within the ferrule – 12 and in contact with inner surface of the ferrule – 12 and stub optical fiber – 14).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Trunz with the disclosure of DeRosa, whereby an assembly for mounting an optical element in an optical system, having a plurality of flexible metal members with a first end affixed and extending from a mount whereby a retainer is secured to the mount comprising a ring-shaped wall portion and a free end defining a bearing surface and joining the optical element to the bearing surface to secure the optical element to the mount in order to hold the optical element to the mount and decoupled from mechanical stresses and thermal strains to the flexible metal members, as disclosed by Trunz, would also include an inorganic adhesive composition disposed on this bearing as disclosed by DeRosa.
One with ordinary skill would consider an inorganic adhesive composition advantageous because the precursors are stable at ambient conditions for at least a month without significant degradation and, in some embodiments, the inorganic adhesive compositions have a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) similar to the CTE of the bearing surface of the metallic flexible members (paragraphs [0028] [0036]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and DeRosa further discloses that a precursor to the inorganic adhesive composition comprises a metallic salt or a metal ion containing compound in a solvent (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and DeRosa further discloses that the metallic salt or metal ion containing compound comprises zinc, tin, aluminum, indium, iron, tungsten, titanium, titanium, zirconium, silicon, silicon nitride, boron, boron nitride, copper, silver, yttrium, rare earth ions, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and DeRosa further discloses that the metallic salt or metal ion containing compound comprises zirconium, yttrium, or both zirconium and yttrium (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and DeRosa further discloses that the precursor to the inorganic adhesive composition comprises a polar aprotic solvent (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 5 and DeRosa further discloses that the polar aprotic solvents comprises dichloromethane (DCM), tetrahydrofuran (THF), ethyl acetate, acetone, dimethylformamide (DMF), acetonitrile, and/or dimethylsulfozide (DMSO) (Table 1, paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and 7, respectively, and DeRosa further discloses that the inorganic adhesive composition comprises a metal oxide (claim 7) and that the metal oxide comprise a metal oxide of zirconium or yttrium (claim 8) (paragraph [0022] inorganic adhesive composition may comprise one or more metal oxides such as zirconium …yttrium).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and DeRosa further discloses that the inorganic adhesive composition comprises a ceramic material (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and 10, respectively, and DeRosa further discloses that an adhesion promoting coating is disposed between the bearing surface and the inorganic adhesive composition (claim 10) (paragraph [0035] fiber or ferrule or both – which define the bearing surface of Trunz – may be coated with the adhesion promoter prior to the deposition of the inorganic adhesive composition) and DeRosa further discloses that the adhesion promoting coating comprises titanates, zirconates, and/or silanes (claim 11) (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 10 and 12, respectively, and DeRosa further discloses that
the inorganic adhesive composition comprises, when disposed on the bearing surface (claim 12) (paragraph [0035]), a first surface and a second surface opposite of the first surface (Figs, 1, 2 paragraph [0014] fiber receiving passage – 30 defined inner surface of the ferrule – 12 contacted with an inorganic adhesive composition – 40 to secure an optical fiber disposed within the ferrule – 12 and in contact with inner surface of the ferrule – 12 and stub optical fiber – 14 where the first surface is the defined inner surface of the ferrule – 12 and the optical fiber surface is the second surface),
a first layer of the adhesion promoting coating is disposed between the bearing surface and the first surface of the inorganic adhesive composition, and
a second layer of the adhesion promoting coating is disposed on the second surface of the inorganic adhesive composition (paragraph [0035] where the coating of both the fiber and ferrule is an embodiment – fiber or ferrule or both, by be coated with the adhesion promoter onto the optical fiber/into a fiber-receiving passage defining an inner surface of the ferrule) and DeRosa further discloses that both the first layer and the second layer of the adhesion promoting coating comprise titanates, zirconates, and/or silanes (claim 13) (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claims 14, 15 and 16 the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and 14, respectively, and DeRosa further discloses that the optical element is secured to the mount with the inorganic adhesive composition and that the optical element directly contacts the inorganic adhesive composition (claims 14, 15) (Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0014] fiber receiving passage – 30 defined inner surface of the ferrule – 12 contacted with an inorganic adhesive composition – 40 to secure an optical fiber disposed within the ferrule – 12 and in contact with inner surface of the ferrule – 12 and stub optical fiber – 14) and DeRosa further discloses that the optical element directly contacts an adhesion promoting coating comprised of titanates, zirconates, and/or silanes (claim 16) (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and DeRosa further discloses that the inorganic adhesive composition comprises a metal oxide (paragraph [0022]), and
an adhesion promoting coating is disposed between the bearing surface and the inorganic adhesive composition, the adhesion promoting coating being comprised of titanates, zirconates, and/or silanes (paragraph [0035] fiber or ferrule or both – which define the bearing surface of Trunz – may be coated with the adhesion promoter prior to the deposition of the inorganic adhesive composition) and DeRosa further discloses that the adhesion promoting coating comprises titanates, zirconates, and/or silanes (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Trunz further discloses that the plurality of flexible metal members each have an inverted U-shape profile (See Fig. 1 paragraph [0017] tabs have curved geometric shape after connection with the lens).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Trunz further discloses that the mount has a ring-shape (Fig. 2, 4 paragraph [0010] closed membrane ring).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Trunz (EP 1 026 532 A1) IDS 09/18/2023 with machine translation and DeRosa (US 2015/0093080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson (EP 1 081 521 A2) IDS 09/18/2023.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Trunz and DeRosa disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that each flexible metal member comprises a cantilever member.
Watson discloses in an invention relating to a lens mounting structure with flexible metal members (Figs. 3, 9A paragraphs [0020] [0033] cell body – 24 includes a plurality of soft mount cutouts – 36 with a plurality of soft mounts or supports – 38 which include a resilient tongue or blade spring – 42; which are formed from a flat material e.g. metal) whereby each flexible metal member comprises a cantilever member (Figs. 3, 4, 9A paragraphs [0021] [0033] set of nine (9) cantilever blades – 42 which are highly compliant)
with a first portion and a second portion extending between the first end and the free end, the first portion extending in a first direction, the second portion extending in a second direction such that the first direction is different from the second direction, and a curved portion of the flexible metal member connecting the first portion with the second portion (Figs. 3, 3A, 4 paragraphs [0020] [0021] when blades are deformed a tip portion – 50 of the blade – 42 is parallel to the surface of the ridge – 12 on the lens – 10 plurality of nine (9) cantilever blades – 42 compliant in the optical axis direction and are inherently curved when deformed by the lens).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the combination of Trunz and DeRosa with the teachings of Watson whereby each of the flexible metal members comprise a cantilever member, as taught by Watson, with a first portion extending in a first direction and a second portion extending in a second direction such that the first and second directions are different with a curved portion connecting the first and second portions, as taught by Watson.
This would be considered as an improvement and advantageous by the skilled artisan because these flexible metal member comprising cantilever members or blades are, as a result of the above recited configuration, compliant in the optical axis direction and, therefore, do not overconstrain the lens positioning due to the cantilever members providing more distributed support of the lens to counter any distortion due to gravity and, additionally, this compliance creates low sensitivity of the supporting force to mechanical machining tolerances (paragraph [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights