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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on March 2, 2026. Claim(s) 1-2 and 7 been amended. No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-2 and 7 filed on March 2, 2026.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which applied Bradley (US PG Pub No. 20160252684) in view of Carberry (US PG Pub No. 20060188208).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 : The applicant’s remarks that previous rejection based upon Bradley in view of Carberry fails to disclose all the limitations of the amended claim are fully considered and found persuasive. However, the claims are not considered to be in conditions for allowance. See the new rejection, further applying Fleenor below to address the deficiencies of Bradley in view of Carberry.
Non-statutory Double Patenting: Applicant remarks that the double patenting no longer apply due to amendment. However, application 18552058 also underwent similar amendments. Claim 6 recites “a perpendicular portion…and an inclined portion inclined with respect to the perpendicular portion.” The Non-statutory double patenting rejection remains in effect.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US PG Pub No. 20160252684) in view of Carberry (US PG Pub No. 20060188208) and further in view of Fleenor (US Patent No. 6712526).
In regards to claim 1, Bradley discloses
a manufacturing method for an optical connector, comprising:
inserting and fixing a multi-core fiber (MCF multicore fiber 80; fig. 8-11; [0062-0065], [0071-0072]) into a ferrule (ferrule 90, fig. 8-11; [0062-0070]),
[0078] 120B: Insert the bare end portion of the multicore fiber into a guide hole defined longitudinally through a ferrule subassembly.
[0081] 120E: Bond the multicore fiber within the ferrule. Adhesive, epoxy, or the like can be used in this step.
wherein at least one of a plurality of cores of the multi-core fiber (MCF multicore fiber 80; fig. 8-11; [0062-0065], [0071-0072]) is a spiral core (core C7, see fig.8, 11A-11B);
PNG
media_image1.png
185
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
304
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0061] A further aspect of the invention is directed to MCF termination techniques that are specifically intended to address polish-induced core misalignment in twisted MCFs.
[0062] FIG. 8 shows a perspective diagram of a twisted MCF 80, and FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an end view of twisted MCF 80 after it has been installed into ferrule 90, prior to angle grinding. Fiber 80 is installed into a capillary extending to the tip of the ferrule 90.
[0063] The fiber endface is flush with the ferrule tip.
[0064] For the purposes of the present discussion, twisted MCF 80 is depicted as having seven cores, with the same cross-sectional core configuration as MCF 30, discussed above. For convenient reference, the cores of twisted MCF 80 are numbered using the same numbering scheme.
and
obliquely polishing the ferrule (ferrule 90, fig. 8-11; [0062-0070]) such that a tip portion of the ferrule has:
having a predefined width (see fig. 10B - ann. 1); [0067]); and
[0067] FIG. 10A shows a typical conical APC connector ferrule end, where D represents the initial pedestal diameter. FIG. 10B shows the connector ferrule end after the angle grinding step, where φ represents the final end-face angle.
PNG
media_image4.png
288
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Bradley is not explicit in disclosing inserting the ferrule (ferrule 90, fig. 8-11; [0062-0070]) into “a housing” and aligning the cores with “the housing” around a central axis (fiber axis, [0015, [0018], [0090]) of the multi-core fiber. Bradley discloses the process of aligning cores and making adjustments in anticipation of oblique polishing, but not doing so relative to a “housing”.
Carberry teaches an apparatus for a termination oven for attaching optical connectors to fiber optic cables in the field. Within their method, Carberry discloses preparing the ferrule and fiber relative to each other, and then inserting into a housing:
[0030] The next step is to polish 416 the fiber 308 and ferrule 312...First the epoxy bead is polished off and then the end of the ferrule 312 and the fiber 308 are polished to a flat, smooth surface. During this phase of polishing, the puck is moved over the film in a predetermined pattern for a specified number of rotations. During polishing, the fiber 308 and ferrule 312 are inspected to determine if the polishing is proceeding as necessary.
[0031] After polishing is completed, the next step is to complete the connector assembly 418. This step 418 includes inserting the connector into a housing and sliding the connector boot over the connector, if it has not already been done. The next step is to clean and inspect the connector 420. The connector end is cleaned by wiping the end of the connector across a cleaning material. A visual inspection is made of the end of the ferrule 312 and fiber 308 to ensure that the surface is properly prepared for mating with another connector. In one embodiment, a microscope is used to do the visual inspection.
Carberry and Bradley are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for manufacturing/assembling optical cables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley with the teachings of Carberry and provide a step of inserting and aligning the ferrule and fiber, after flat polishing, into housing as taught by Carberry, in ensure that any additional epoxy for securing the fiber has been removed, and to ensure a clean mating connection with the connectors ([0031-0032]).
Bradley also fails to disclose that the polishing of the ferrule results in the ferrule having “a reference surface perpendicular to a direction of the central axis…”which further results in “an inclined surface inclined at an inclination angle with respect to the reference surface.”
However, Fleenor discloses a ferrule with angled and perpendicular surface, as well as a method for manufacturing:
Col. 8 lines 26-45:
The translation stage continues to advance the grinder 48 toward the ferrule 10 until a hemispherical portion 28 of the desired size has been formed… the translation stage can controllably advance the grinder a predetermined distance toward the ferrule, with the predetermined distance being selected such that the hemispherical portion of the desired size is thereby formed… However, advancement of the grinder toward the ferrule is preferably halted while the front face of the resulting ferrule still includes a plateau 26 so as to prevent unnecessary wear of the grinding wheel.
PNG
media_image5.png
545
493
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fleenor and Bradley are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for manufacturing/assembling optical cables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley with the teachings of Fleenor and grind the ferrule only up until a plateau is created on the tip, resulting in a reference surface in order to prevent unnecessary wear on the grinding tool (Fleenor col. 8 line 45), extending the tool life and decreasing costs for the manufacturer.
In regards to claim 2, Bradley modified discloses
the manufacturing method according to claim 1, further comprising: after inserting and fixing the multi-core fiber (MCF multicore fiber 80; fig. 8-11; [0062-0065], [0071-0072]) but before inserting the ferrule and aligning the cores (as taught by Carberry [0031-0032]),
forming an end surface of the ferrule by polishing the ferrule perpendicularly to the direction of the central axis (fiber axis, [0015, [0018], [0090]).
In regards to claim 3, Bradley modified discloses
the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the aligning of the cores includes aligning the cores at a position having a rotational offset amount that compensates for expected positional misalignment of the cores due to the oblique polishing of the ferrule ([0061-0070]).
[0018]:…The ferrule subassembly is rotated around its longitudinal axis within the optical connector until the fiber cores have a selected pre-polish angular offset relative to a selected post-polish rotational alignment. The ferrule is polished to a desired endface angle, such that the fiber cores have the selected post-polish rotational alignment.
[0061] A further aspect of the invention is directed to MCF termination techniques that are specifically intended to address polish-induced core misalignment in twisted MCFs.
[0066] According to as an aspect of the invention, this problem is addressed by adjusting the pre-polish angular alignment of an MCF relative to the connector housing in order to compensate for the core migration that occurs during polishing.
[0067] FIG. 10A shows a typical conical APC connector ferrule end, where D represents the initial pedestal diameter. FIG. 10B shows the connector ferrule end after the angle grinding step, where φ represents the final end-face angle.
[0068] In FIG. 11A, an adjustment has been made to the rotational alignment of the MCF in order to compensate for the subsequent rotational migration of the cores.
[0069] … instead of initially aligning Core 1 in the 12 o'clock position, the core is aligned at least θ degrees counter-clockwise from the 12 o'clock position…
[0070] … The pre-polish angular orientation θ.sub.pre-polish must also be adjusted to account for variations in the following: final polishing methods, connector spring forces, polishing fixture bore angle, pre-polish ferrule extension length, and core twist rate.
In regards to claim 4, Bradley as modified discloses
the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the oblique polishing of the ferrule includes obliquely polishing the (ferrule 90, fig. 8-11; [0062-0070]) while the housing rotates around the central axis (fiber axis, [0015, [0018], [0090]) to have a rotational offset amount that compensates for expected positional misalignment of the cores due to the oblique polishing of the ferrule ([0061-0070]).
[0018]:…The ferrule subassembly is rotated around its longitudinal axis within the optical connector until the fiber cores have a selected pre-polish angular offset relative to a selected post-polish rotational alignment. The ferrule is polished to a desired endface angle, such that the fiber cores have the selected post-polish rotational alignment.
[0061] A further aspect of the invention is directed to MCF termination techniques that are specifically intended to address polish-induced core misalignment in twisted MCFs.
[0066] According to as an aspect of the invention, this problem is addressed by adjusting the pre-polish angular alignment of an MCF relative to the connector housing in order to compensate for the core migration that occurs during polishing.
[0067] FIG. 10A shows a typical conical APC connector ferrule end, where D represents the initial pedestal diameter. FIG. 10B shows the connector ferrule end after the angle grinding step, where φ represents the final end-face angle.
[0068] In FIG. 11A, an adjustment has been made to the rotational alignment of the MCF in order to compensate for the subsequent rotational migration of the cores.
[0069] … instead of initially aligning Core 1 in the 12 o'clock position, the core is aligned at least θ degrees counter-clockwise from the 12 o'clock position…
[0070] … The pre-polish angular orientation θ.sub.pre-polish must also be adjusted to account for variations in the following: final polishing methods, connector spring forces, polishing fixture bore angle, pre-polish ferrule extension length, and core twist rate.
Examiner’s Note:As the rotational misalignment is being compensated, a skilled artisan would recognize that the housing, along with the core and ferrules would rotate as a result of the polishing apparatus being applied to the fiber end.
In regards to claim 5, Bradley as modified discloses
the manufacturing method according to claim 2, further comprising:
after the oblique polishing of the ferrule (as taught by Carberry [0031-0032]), fixing the ferrule to the housing by rotating the ferrule ([0061-0070]) around the central axis (fiber axis, [0015, [0018], [0090]).
Examiner’s Note:
As written, the claim recites that fixing the ferrule to the housing is accomplished “by rotating the ferrule around the central axis.” Though Bradley as modified doesn’t use the term “fixing”, the method of Bradley discloses rotating the ferrule around the central axis. As such, the result is the “fixing” of the ferrule to the housing.
In regards to claim 6, Bradley as modified discloses
the manufacturing method according to claim 2,
further comprising: after the oblique polishing of the ferrule (as taught by Carberry [0031-0032]), fixing the ferrule to the housing by aligning positions of the cores ([0061-0070]).
Examiner’s Note:
As written, the claim recites that fixing the ferrule to the housing is accomplished “aligning positions of the cores.” Though Bradley as modified doesn’t use the term “fixing”, the method of Bradley discloses aligning . As such, the result is the “fixing” of the ferrule to the housing.
In regards to claim 7, Bradley discloses
the manufacturing method according to claim 3, wherein the rotational offset amount is expressed by
φ= (2pi/fw) X (d/2 – l) X (tan Θapc)
where φ is the rotational offset amount,
fw is a spiral period of the multi-core fiber,
d is a diameter of an end surface of the ferrule before obliquely polishing the ferrule,
l is the width of the end surface of the ferrule, and
Θapc is the inclination angle at which the ferrule is obliquely polished.
Examiner’s Note:
Bradley defines a rotational offset amount as a “Θpre-polish = 0.18 DT tan ɸ”, wherein φ is the fiber end face angle (same function as applicants claim Θapc), D is the pedestal diameter (same as diameter d of applicant), and T is the twist rate. Φ will equal Θpre-polish (assuming equal polishing/grinding angles) if:
(2pi/fw) X (d/2 – l) = 0.18DT. As such, 0.18DT is able to express the claimed angle.
In regards to claim 8, Bradley as modified discloses
the manufacturing method according to claim 1,
wherein the fixing of the multi-core fiber (MCF multicore fiber 80; fig. 8-11; [0062-0065], [0071-0072]) includes
fixing the multi-core fiber to the ferrule such that, in a state where positions of the cores around the central axis (fiber axis, [0015, [0018], [0090]) having a polished end surface are aligned with respect to the ferrule,
[0079] 120C: Align the cores of the fiber rotationally, in a predetermined orientation, relative to the ferrule.
[0080] 120D: Bias each fiber within the fiber guide hole, in a predetermined orientation relative to the ferrule.
[0081] 120E: Bond the multicore fiber within the ferrule. Adhesive, epoxy, or the like can be used in this step.
[0082] 120F: Trim the fiber at the ferrule tip and polishing the ferrule end face, so that a selected alignment of the multicore fiber is achieved.
the polished end surface is flush with the end surface of the ferrule ([0062-0063]).
[0017] An aspect of the invention is directed to structures and techniques for aligning multicore optical fibers in a multicore optical fiber cable having a plurality of optical fiber cores…The fiber is trimmed at the ferrule tip and the fiber and ferrule end faces are polished, so that a selected alignment of the multicore fiber is achieved.
[0062] FIG. 8 shows a perspective diagram of a twisted MCF 80, and FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an end view of twisted MCF 80 after it has been installed into ferrule 90, prior to angle grinding. Fiber 80 is installed into a capillary extending to the tip of the ferrule 90.
[0063] The fiber endface is flush with the ferrule tip.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 8 of copending Application No. 18552058 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
18552058 Claims 1 and 6 discloses:
Claim 1: A manufacturing method for an optical connector, comprising:
inserting and fixing a multi-core fiber, into a ferrule, wherein at least one of a plurality of cores of the multi-core fiber is a spiral core;
inserting the ferrule into a housing and aligning the cores with the housing around a central axis of the multi-core fiber;
obliquely polishing the ferrule while the housing rotates with respect to the central axis to have a rotational offset amount that compensates for positional misalignment of the cores expected due to the oblique polishing of the ferrule; and
fixing the ferrule to the housing after the aligning of the cores.
Claim 6: The manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the oblique polishing of the ferrule includes obliquely polishing the ferrule until a width of an end surface of the ferrule perpendicular to a direction of the central axis reaches a predefined width.
18283553 Claims 1, 4 and 6 discloses:
Claim 1: A manufacturing method for an optical connector, comprising:
inserting and fixing a multi-core fiber into a ferrule, wherein at least one of a plurality of cores of the multi-core fiber is a spiral core;
inserting the ferrule into a housing and aligning the cores with the housing around a central axis of the multi-core fiber;
and obliquely polishing the ferrule until a width of an end surface of the ferrule perpendicular to a direction of the central axis reaches a predefined width.
Claim 4: The manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the oblique polishing of the ferrule includes obliquely polishing ferrule while the housing rotates around the central axis to have a rotational offset amount that compensates for expected positional misalignment of the cores due to the oblique polishing of the ferrule.
Claim 6: The manufacturing method of claim 1 further comprising after the oblique polishing of the ferrule, fixing the ferrule to the housing by aligning positions of the cores.
Claim 8 of 18283553 is almost identical to claim 5 of 18552058.
Claim 7 of 18283553 expresses the same equation of claim 8 of 18552058.
Claim 2 of 18283553 is almost identical to claim 4 of 18552058 .
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other copending application. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights