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 Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed December 18, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
Inventorship
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitation (emphasis added) “such that each of the plurality of second side surface portions comprises a planar alignment face disposed on the plurality of side surfaces and extending outwardly from a corresponding first side surface portion” in lines 17-19.
Independent claim 9 has been amended to recite the limitation (emphasis added) “each of the plurality of second side surface portions comprising a planar alignment face” in lines 15-16.
Independent claim 13 has been amended to recite the limitation (emphasis added) “each of the one or more second side surface portions comprises a planar alignment face” in lines 18-19.
The application as originally filed, including the specification, the claims, the abstract, and the drawings, does not specify that the second side surface portions (38) of the optical ferrule (200) include “a planar alignment face”.
With reference to the publication of the present application (US 2024/0201453 A1), nowhere in the specification is “a planar alignment face” discussed. The term “face” does not appear in the publication. The term “faces” appears 3 times, once in paragraph 38 and twice in paragraph 40.
Paragraph 38 states (emphasis added) that “[i]n some embodiments, second side surface portions 38 may have a maximum dimension, Dmax, which is less than or equal to 200 microns, or less than or equal to 150 microns, or less than or equal to 100 microns. In some embodiments, an area of each of the second side surface portions 38 may be significantly less than a corresponding area of each of the first side surface portions 203a. For example, the total area of second side surface portions 38 (i.e., the faces of the second side surface portion 38 may be less than 5%, or less than 4%, or less than 3%, of the total area of the first side surface portions 203a).” This teaching does not specify that the faces are planar alignment faces.
Paragraph 40 states (emphases added) that “[i]t should be noted that the faces of second side surface portions 38 of optical ferrule 200 and the faces second side surface portions 48 of optical cradle 100 are substantially in contact (i.e., features 38 and 48 are substantially parallel, and the contact between the two set of features is more than just an edge contact).” “Substantially in contact” and “substantially parallel” do not necessarily suggest a “planar alignment face”. Two curved side surface portions may make contact along a line that is substantially in contact and substantially parallel, while being located in a middle of a curved side and not providing a planar alignment surface.
Therefore, there is no apparent support for the added limitations.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-16 inherently contain the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al. (US 2013/0279860 A1), hereafter Hung.
Regarding claims 1 and 5-8; Hung discloses a molded optical ferrule (201; see Figures 1-10; see paragraph 36, the 201 is fabricated using a moldable optical material) configured to mate with a mating optical component (100) and comprising:
a top surface (see Figures 5 and 6) comprising an attachment area (fiber attachment area 202) for attaching to an optical waveguide (fibers 213 of fiber cables 211; see Figures 9 and 10) and a light redirecting member (beam steering structure 204; see Figure 10) for receiving light from the optical waveguide (213) attached to the attachment area (202) along a first direction and redirecting the received light along a different second direction (see Figure 10, the first and second directions are indicated with dashed lines and arrows);
a bottom surface (see Figures 5 and 7) opposite the top surface and comprising an exit window (lens structures 207 are formed in the exit window), the top and bottom surfaces defining a thickness direction of the molded optical ferrule (201) therebetween, the light redirected by the light redirecting member (204) exiting the molded optical ferrule (201) through the exit window (207; see Figure 10); and
a plurality of side surfaces (the side surfaces include chamfer structures 206) joining the top and bottom surfaces and comprising:
a plurality of first side surface portions (206; see annotated Figures 9 and 10 below) making a first angle greater than zero degrees with the thickness direction, the first angle assisting in a removal of the molded optical ferrule from a corresponding mold; and
a plurality of second side surface portions (208; see annotated Figure 9 below) extending outwardly from at least some of the plurality of first side surface portions (206) and making a second angle less than the first angle with the thickness direction, such that each of the plurality of second side surface portions (208) comprising an alignment face (the face of the second side surface portions 208 is inherently an alignment face in the invention of Hung et al. because the locations of the pins and their faces align the ferrule with the cradle as illustrated; see Figures 9 and 10) disposed on the plurality of second side surfaces (see Figure 9) and extending outwardly from a corresponding first side surface portion (see Figure 9 annotated below), and when the molded optical ferrule (201) mates with the mating optical component (100), at least some of the second (208), but not the first (206), side surface portions contact corresponding side surface portions (see annotated Figure 10 below) of the mating optical component (100; see Figures 7, 8, and 10);
wherein the mating optical component (100) is a mating optical cradle (see Figures 1-10);
wherein the first angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree (see Figures 6, 9, and 10; chamfered surface 6 makes an angle greater than 1 degree as clearly illustrated);
wherein the second angle is less than 1 degree (see Figures 6-10; the angle is 0 degrees);
wherein the second angle is 0 degrees (see Figures 6-10; the angle is 0 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hung et al. does not disclose that the faces of the second side surface portions are planar. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alignment features, including the second surface portions of Hung et al. (labeled in Figure 9) and the corresponding side surfaces portions (labeled in Figure 10 above) could be formed in different complementary shapes, including shapes having a planar surface, for example, instead of the illustrated substantially cylindrical pins, rectangular or triangular pins and corresponding side surface portions could be provided, since a simple change in shape of these features would not provide any novel or unexpected results, and it has been held that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability (Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPA 835), that change in form of any element of prior patent must result in more than useful natural phenomenon that man has accumulated through common knowledge; even though use of new device greatly improves field and provides great utility, and commercial success is enjoyed because of long-felt need, these features cannot sustain patentability where involves is only extended application of obvious attributes from prior art (Span-Deck, Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835), and that the configuration of an element of prior art is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally regarding claim 1; the examiner notes that applicant is claiming the product (a molded optical ferrule) including the process of making the product ( “molded” and “assisting in removal of the molded optical ferrule from a corresponding mold”), and therefor claims 1-8 are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685 and 688 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claims 9-12; Hung discloses a molded optical cradle (holder 100; see Figures 1-10) configured to mate with a mating optical ferrule (201) and configured to align the mating optical ferrule (201) to an optical device (optoelectronic components 302 and/or optoelectronic interface IC 301), the molded optical cradle (100) comprising:
a top major surface (see Figures 3 and 4);
an opposing bottom major surface (see Figures 3 and 4),
the top major surface and bottom major surface defining a thickness direction of the molded optical cradle (100) therebetween; and
a recess (cavity 107) configured to accept the mating optical ferrule (201; see Figures 7-10), the recess (107) extending between the top major surface and the bottom major surface in the thickness direction and comprising a plurality of inner side surfaces (see annotated Figure 4 below);
each inner side surface of the plurality of inner side surfaces comprising:
a plurality of first side surface portions (105; see annotated Figure 4 below) making a first angle greater than zero degrees with the thickness direction, the first angle assisting in a removal of the molded optical cradle from a corresponding mold; and
a plurality of second side surface portions (see annotated Figure 4 below) extending outwardly from at least some of the plurality of first side surface portions and making a second angle less than the first angle with the thickness direction, each of the plurality of second side surface portions (see Figure 4 annotated below) comprising an alignment face disposed on the inner side surface of the recess such that when the molded optical cradle (100) is mated with the mating optical ferrule (201), at least some of the second, but not the first, side surface portions contact corresponding side surface portions of the mating optical ferrule (see Figures 7-10);
wherein the optical device (301) is a photonic integrated circuit, a lens, or a grating;
wherein the first angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree (see Figures 4 and 10); and
wherein the second angle is about 0 degrees (see Figures 4 and 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hung et al. does not disclose that the faces of the second side surface portions are planar. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alignment features, including the second surface portions of Hung et al. (labeled in Figure 4) and the corresponding side surfaces could be formed in different complementary shapes, including shapes having a planar surface, for example, instead of the illustrated substantially cylindrical pins, rectangular or triangular pins and corresponding rectangular and triangular side surface portions could be provided, since a simple change in shape of these features would not provide any novel or unexpected results, and it has been held that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability (Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPA 835), that change in form of any element of prior patent must result in more than useful natural phenomenon that man has accumulated through common knowledge; even though use of new device greatly improves field and provides great utility, and commercial success is enjoyed because of long-felt need, these features cannot sustain patentability where involves is only extended application of obvious attributes from prior art (Span-Deck, Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835), and that the configuration of an element of prior art is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally regarding claim 9; the examiner notes that applicant is claiming the product (a molded optical cradle) including the process of making the product ( “molded” and “assisting in removal of the molded optical cradle from a corresponding mold”), and therefor claims 9-12 are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685 and 688 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claims 13, 15, and 16; Hung discloses an optical assembly (see Figures 1-10) comprising:
a molded optical ferrule (201; see the rejection of claim 1 above) comprising:
a top surface (see Figures 5 and 6) comprising an attachment area (202) for attaching to an optical waveguide (213) and a light redirecting member (204) for receiving light from the optical waveguide (213) attached to the attachment area (202) along a first direction and redirect the received light along a different second direction (see Figure 10);
a bottom surface (see Figures 5 and 7) opposite the top surface and comprising an exit window (207), the top and bottom surfaces defining a thickness direction of the molded optical ferrule (201) therebetween, the light redirected by the light redirecting member (204) exiting the molded optical ferrule (201) through the exit window (207); and
a plurality of side surfaces joining the top and bottom surfaces (see the rejection of claim 1 and annotated Figure 10 above) and comprising:
a plurality of first side surface portions making a first angle greater than zero degrees with the thickness direction of the molded optical ferrule, the first angle assisting in a removal of the molded optical ferrule from a corresponding mold; and
one or more second side surface portions extending outwardly from at least some of the plurality of first side surface portions and making a second angle less than the first angle with the thickness direction of the molded optical ferrule, wherein each of the one or more second side surface portions comprises an alignment face disposed on the plurality of side surfaces; and
an optical cradle (100; see the rejection of claim 9 above; see Figures 1-10) comprising a recess (107) configured to accept the molded optical ferrule (201; see Figures 7-10) therein and to align the molded optical ferrule (201) to an optical device (301 and/or 302), the recess (107) extending between a first major surface and a second major surface of the optical cradle (100) in a thickness direction of the optical cradle (100) and comprising a plurality of inner side surfaces (see Figures 3, 4, and 7-10);
wherein at least some of the one or more second side surface portions of the molded optical ferrule make contact with at least some of the plurality of inner side surfaces of the optical cradle when mated (see the rejections of claims 1 and 9 above; see annotated Figures 4, 9, and 10 above) and none of the plurality of first side surface portions of the molded optical ferrule contact the plurality of inner side surfaces in the mated state;
wherein each of the one or more second side surface portions of the one or more second side surface portions make an angle of 0 degrees with the thickness direction (see Figures 4-10);
wherein the optical device (301) is a photonic integrated circuit, a lens, or a grating.
Hung et al. does not disclose that the faces of the second side surface portions are planar. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alignment features, including the second surface portions of Hung et al. (labeled in Figure 9) and the corresponding side surfaces portions (labeled in Figure 10 above) could be formed in different complementary shapes, including shapes having a planar surface, for example, instead of the illustrated substantially cylindrical pins, rectangular or triangular pins and corresponding side surface portions could be provided, since a simple change in shape of these features would not provide any novel or unexpected results, and it has been held that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability (Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPA 835), that change in form of any element of prior patent must result in more than useful natural phenomenon that man has accumulated through common knowledge; even though use of new device greatly improves field and provides great utility, and commercial success is enjoyed because of long-felt need, these features cannot sustain patentability where involves is only extended application of obvious attributes from prior art (Span-Deck, Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835), and that the configuration of an element of prior art is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally regarding claim 13; the examiner notes that applicant is claiming the product (an optical assembly) including the process of making the product ( “molded” and “assisting in removal of the molded optical ferrule from a corresponding mold”), and therefor claims 13-16 are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685 and 688 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 14; Hung discloses the molded optical ferrule of claim 1 and the optical assembly of claim 13, but does specify that:
a maximum dimension of each second side surface portion of the plurality of second side surface portions is 200 microns;
at least 50% of a surface area of each of the plurality of second side surface portions is in contact with the corresponding side surface portions of the mating optical component;
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the dimensions of the ferrule (201) of Hung and corresponding cradle (100) for the purpose of accommodating optical waveguides (213/211) of a desired size while providing sufficient structural integrity to secure the waveguides for handling, as there does not appear to be any novel or unexpected results that would occur from any dimension of a side surface and/or percentage of contact area of the side surfaces with the mating optical component. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a maximum dimension of each second side surface portion of the plurality of second side surface portions that is 200 microns and/or wherein at least 50% of a surface area of each of the plurality of second side surface portions is in contact with the corresponding side surface portions of the mating optical component for the purpose of accommodating optical fibers of a desired size with a ferrule and cradle arrangement that provides sufficient support to remain intact while handling and using the arrangement, 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), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haase et al. (WO 2020003245 A1), hereafter Haase.
Regarding claims 1 and 4; Haase discloses a molded optical ferrule (200; see Figures 1A and 1B) configured to mate with a mating optical component (200’; see Figure 5B) and comprising:
a top surface (10) comprising an attachment area (30) for attaching to an optical waveguide (32) and a light redirecting member (40) for receiving light from the optical waveguide (32) attached to the attachment area (30) along a first direction and redirecting the received light along a different second direction (see Figure 2);
a bottom surface (20) opposite the top surface (10) and comprising an exit window (50), the top and bottom surfaces (10 and 20, respectively) defining a thickness direction of the molded optical ferrule (200) therebetween, the light redirected by the light redirecting member (40) exiting the molded optical ferrule (200) through the exit window (50); and
a plurality of side surfaces joining the top and bottom surfaces (see Figure 5A, annotated below) and comprising:
a plurality of first side surface portions (see annotated Figure 5A below) making a first angle greater than zero degrees with the thickness direction, the first angle assisting in a removal of the molded optical ferrule from a corresponding mold; and
a plurality of second side surface portions (see annotated Figure 5B below) extending outwardly from at least some of the plurality of first side surface portions and making a second angle less than the first angle with the thickness direction, such that each of the plurality of second side surface portions comprises an alignment face disposed on the plurality of side surfaces and extending outwardly from a corresponding first side surface portion, and when the molded optical ferrule (200) mates with the mating optical component (200’), at least some of the second, but not the first, side surface portions contact corresponding side surface portions of the mating optical component (see Figure 5B);
wherein the mating optical component (200’) is a mating optical ferrule.
PNG
media_image3.png
643
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Haase et al. does not disclose that the alignment faces are planar. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alignment features, including the second surface portions of Haase et al. (labeled in Figure 9) and the corresponding side surfaces portions of the cradle could be formed in different complementary shapes, including shapes having a planar surface, since a simple change in shape of these features would not provide any novel or unexpected results, and it has been held that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability (Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPA 835), that change in form of any element of prior patent must result in more than useful natural phenomenon that man has accumulated through common knowledge; even though use of new device greatly improves field and provides great utility, and commercial success is enjoyed because of long-felt need, these features cannot sustain patentability where involves is only extended application of obvious attributes from prior art (Span-Deck, Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835), and that the configuration of an element of prior art is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally regarding claim 1; the examiner notes that applicant is claiming the product (a molded optical ferrule) including the process of making the product ( “molded” and “assisting in removal of the molded optical ferrule from a corresponding mold”), and therefor claims 1-8 are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685 and 688 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP §2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to the repeated use of the term “faces” of the second side surface portions being in face-to-face contact and “substantially parallel” with more than edge contact in the specification, specifically referring to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the specification.
The examiner disagrees.
The application as originally filed, including the specification, the claims, the abstract, and the drawings, does not specify that the second side surface portions (38) of the optical ferrule (200) include “a planar alignment face”.
With reference to the publication of the present application (US 2024/0201453 A1), nowhere in the specification is “a planar alignment face” discussed. The term “face” does not appear in the publication. The term “faces” appears 3 times, once in paragraph 38 and twice in paragraph 40.
Paragraph 38 states (emphasis added) that “[i]n some embodiments, second side surface portions 38 may have a maximum dimension, Dmax, which is less than or equal to 200 microns, or less than or equal to 150 microns, or less than or equal to 100 microns. In some embodiments, an area of each of the second side surface portions 38 may be significantly less than a corresponding area of each of the first side surface portions 203a. For example, the total area of second side surface portions 38 (i.e., the faces of the second side surface portion 38 may be less than 5%, or less than 4%, or less than 3%, of the total area of the first side surface portions 203a).” This teaching does not specify that the faces are planar alignment faces.
Paragraph 40 states (emphases added) that “[i]t should be noted that the faces of second side surface portions 38 of optical ferrule 200 and the faces second side surface portions 48 of optical cradle 100 are substantially in contact (i.e., features 38 and 48 are substantially parallel, and the contact between the two set of features is more than just an edge contact).” “Substantially in contact” and “substantially parallel” do not necessarily suggest a “planar alignment face”. Two curved side surface portions may make contact along a line that is substantially in contact and substantially parallel, while being located in a middle of a curved side and not providing a planar alignment surface.
Paragraph 41 requires that second side surface portions 38 extend outwardly from the first side surface portions 203a, such that, when mated with an optical cradle or a second optical ferrule, only the second side surface portions make contact with the corresponding side surfaces of the mating component, but does not define planar alignment surfaces.
Therefore, there is no apparent support for planar alignment surfaces.
Applicant argues that the Figures depict flat faces on the later side surfaces.
The examiner disagrees. The second side surfaces appear to be curved in the Figures.
Applicant states that the side walls of Hung are intentionally chamfered to form an adhesive valley, not to contact for alignment.
Hung does teach that adhesive may be dispensed to seal up any air gaps between the lens cover and the holder (paragraph 8), but this is not the same as teaching that there is no contact.
Applicant further states that Hung’s pins 208 are discrete protrusions from the bottom surface, not portions of the lateral side surfaces and they do not extend outwardly from the first side surface portions as required.
As labelled in Figure 9 of Hung, the second side surface do extend outwardly from the first side surface portions (see the annotated Figure copied below from the rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant states that the side portions remain out of contact in Hung.
As discussed above, Hung does teach that adhesive may be dispensed to seal up any air gaps between the lens cover and the holder (paragraph 8), but this is not the same as teaching that there is no contact.
Applicant states that claims 9 and 13 have been amended similarly to claim 1 and are therefore not anticipated by Hung.
The rejections set forth above address the limitations added in the amendment and are made in view of Applicant’s Amendments to the claims.
Applicant states that side surface alignment features are not disclosed by Haase.
The examiner disagrees. Please see the annotated Figure below, copied from the rejection above.
PNG
media_image3.png
643
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874