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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument the Evans does not disclose the cores being bent only in the same third direction, which is a direction either toward or away from the third surface: The claim further says, “at least once”, which means there can be more than one bend wherein each of the bends are bent only in the same third direction. Given the claims recites multiple bends, Evans does read on this limitation since Evans shows a first bend at the beginning of SZ in Fig. 1H wherein the cores are only bent in the same third direction (up towards 104 for some cores and down towards 103 for other cores) and the cores are bent again only in the same third direction (down for the top cores, up for the bottom cores).
Also, it is unclear as to what “connecting the first surface and the second surface each other” could mean.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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. The dependent claims are included because they include the indefinite language of claim 1. Claim recites “connecting the first surface and the second surface each other”, which can not be interpreted as written. There may be a typo or missing word.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 3, 5, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans et al (US 2021/0011229 A1). Evans teaches:
1. An optical connection component (100’, Figs. 1G-H) comprising:
a plurality of cores (110, cores 1 through 7) that transmit optical signals along a first direction (left to right);
a clad (100) having a smaller refractive index than a refractive index of the plurality of cores (110) and integrally surrounding the plurality of cores (P0063, 0069);
a first surface (101) extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction and in a third direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction (see Fig. 1G); and
a second surface (102) extending in the second direction and the third direction and arranged with the first surface along the first direction (see Fig. 1G), and
a third surface (top/bottom) connecting the first surface (101) and the second surface (102) [[to]]? each other and extending in the first direction (left to right) and the second direction (top to bottom), wherein
each of the plurality of cores (1 through 7) extends from the first surface (101) to the second surface (102) along the first direction and is each bent only in same third direction (up for some, down for others, see Fig. 1H), which is a direction either toward (up) or away (down) form the third surface, at least once, while extending from first surface and the second surface (see Figs. 1G-H; P0075-0076),
the plurality of cores (110) are arranged in a single row along the second direction on each of the first surface (101) and the second surface (102) (see Figs. 1G-H), and
an order in which the plurality of cores (110) are arranged on the first surface (101) as a whole and an order in which the plurality of cores (110) are arranged on the second surface (102) as a whole are different from each other (see the indexing numbers 1-7 on each side in Fig. 1G).
3. The optical connection component according to claim 1, wherein the number of times that each of the plurality of cores (110) is bent in the third direction is the same for all of the cores (see Fig. 1G-H; one bends each).
5. The optical connection component according to claim 1, wherein the number of times that each of the plurality of cores (110) is bent in the third direction is 1 (see Fig. 1G).
10 and 11. An optical wiring (Fig. 2A) comprising:
the optical connection component (100’) according to claim 1; and
a plurality of optical fiber arrays (part of 220; one array can be two fibers, the second array can be the next two fibers and a third array can be the next two fibers) that holds a plurality of optical fibers (235) optically connected to the plurality of cores (110) of the optical connection component (100’).
12. The optical connection component according to claim 1, wherein the optical connection component (100’) is rectangular plate-shaped (see Figs. 1G-H).
13. The optical connection component according to claim 1, wherein each core in the first group (top group in Fig. 1H) is bent in the third direction (up) at a first position (left end of SZ), and each core in the second group (bottom group in Fig. 1H) is bent in the third direction (up) at a second position (right end of SZ) different from the first position (left end of SZ).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans.
Evans teaches the optical connection component of claim 1 and also:
2. The optical connection component according to claim 1, further comprising:
wherein a first distance from the third surface (104) to the plurality of cores (110) on the first surface (101) and a second distance from the third surface (104) to the plurality of cores (101) on the second surface (102) are different from each other (see Fig. 1H at SZ).
Evans does not teach expressly a difference between the first distance and the second distance is 10 µm or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try a distance a of 10 µm or more since this and since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. A distance 10 µm or more from the top of the component would a predictable distance for the cores to be in line to be able to couple to the cores of the external fibers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 112 rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
These claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious an optical connection components with the claimed cores, first through third defined directions, first through third defined surfaces, the claim core bends and orders in combination with the claimed core groups that constitute a first group including at least one core but not all of the plurality of cores, and a second group including the cores that do not belong to the first group among the plurality of cores, an order in which the cores of the first group are arranged on the first surface along the second direction extending from one end toward another end of the optical connection component is the same as an order in which the cores of the first group are arranged on the second surface along the second direction extending from the one end toward the another end, and an order in which the cores of the second group are arranged on the first surface along the second direction extending from the one end toward the another end is the same as an order in which the cores of the second group are arranged on the second surface along the second direction extending from the one end toward the another end,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights