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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11, 13, 15, 18 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an optical connector ferrule comprising, among other things, a shortest distance between a connection position where the flange portion and the front end portion are connected to each other and a portion which is closest to the front end surface in the edge is less than or equal to a width of the flange portion in the intersecting direction; OR a shortest distance between a connection position where the flange portion and the front end portion are connected to each other and a portion which is closest to the front end surface in the edge is less than or equal to 2/5 of a shortest distance between the connection position and the front end surface.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Ota (JP 2011048157A), teaches the edge of the window 15’ or 115, either spaced from the flange 19 or 119 as seen in fig. 1 or along a same line as the flange as seen in figs. 3 and 4. The dimensions of the flange are not taught or suggested by ‘157 nor are the dimensions of the edge of the window. The instant applicant teaches that the claimed dimensions allow for suppression of deformation of the ferrule (pars. 0068 and 0070 of the published application).
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
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 2, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota (JP 2011048157A).
In Re claim 2, ‘157 teaches an optical connector ferrule (10’, 110) comprising: a front end portion including a front end surface (11A, 111A) and a side surface (111C) that is connected to the front end surface and extends in a direction intersecting the front end surface (figs. 3A, 4, 5A, 5B); and a flange portion (19’, 119) connected to the front end portion on an opposite side of the front end surface in the front end portion, and protrudes from the front end portion in a direction along the front end surface, wherein the front end portion includes at least one optical fiber hole (12, 112) opened in the front end surface and extending in an intersecting direction intersecting the front end surface, a window (15, 15’) opened in the side surface, and an internal space (where 4A resides in 10’ or 104A resides in 110) communicating with the at least one optical fiber hole and the window, the front end portion includes an edge defining the window, and a shortest distance between a connection position where the flange portion and the front end portion are connected to each other and the window is 0 mm or more and less than 1 mm (0 mm, as pgs. 9 and 10 of translation teaches that the window 15’ contacts flange 19’ and 115A contacts flange 119 and as seen in the abovementioned figures).
In Re claim 10, ‘157 teaches wherein a guide hole (as seen in figs. 6, 7 and 11) is formed in the front end portion, and a guide pin (102) configured to fix the optical connector ferrule to another optical connector ferrule is to be inserted into the guide hole (fig. 11), and the guide hole opens in the front end surface and extends in the intersecting direction intersecting the front end surface (figs. 6, 7 and 11).
In Re claim 12, ‘157 teaches wherein the window is defined by the edge included in the front end portion and the flange portion (fig. 3).
In Re claim 14, ‘157 teaches wherein the front end portion includes a groove (16A, 116A), and, in the groove, an optical fiber inserted into the optical fiber hole is disposed at a position overlapping the window when viewed in an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the side surface on which the window is formed (figs. 2 and 5).
In Re claim 16, ‘157 teaches wherein a plurality of the optical fiber holes are opened in the front end surface, and are disposed in the orthogonal direction orthogonal to the side surface on which the window is formed (Figs. 2 and 5), the front end portion includes a plurality of step portions disposed in steps at positions overlapping the window when viewed in the orthogonal direction, and the groove is formed in each of the step portions (figs. 2 – 6), and each of the plurality of optical fiber holes disposed in the orthogonal direction is located on an extension line from the groove formed in each of the step portions different from each other.
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.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP 2011048157A).
In Re claims 17 and 19, ‘157 teaches an optical fiber (4A or 104A) inserted into the optical fiber hole; and a curable adhesive portion (Ad, pgs. 9 and 13 of translation) exposed from the window and configured to fix the optical fiber to the optical connector ferrule.
‘157 is silent to the adhesive being a resin.
However, using a resin as the curable adhesive is well known in the art as resin allows for adequate adherence between optical fibers and ferrules as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874