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 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that Tanaka does not disclose a bending portion bending the optical fiber: Tanaka teaches the fiber is bent (P0032, 0036) and therefore is a “bending portion. The claim does not state any particular structure other than “a portion”. Tanaka further teaches bending is done at the position where the splicer is provided (P0036), therefore this provides enough evidence of a bending “portion” that is the part of a splicer. Applicant argues that the bending portion is not a device component that bends the fiber in the splicer (or as a subassembly), but as discussed, the claim provides for a splicer in the preamble that comprises a bending portion bending the fiber. This language does not place the portion “in” any splicer, only that the bending portion being a part of a general fusion splicer in any portion of the system that can be considered a part of the overall splicer.
Regarding the argument that Kanda does not disclose a bending portion and a bending adjustment unit: Kanda teaches a bending portion (21) including a bending adjustment unit (50) for adjusting a bending amount of an optical fiber(s) for fusion splicing (C5 L63 – C6 L18). As stated, Kanda “bending portion” elevates a portion of the fiber while the other portion is held in the holder. As seen in Fig. 4, when the fiber is elevated, a bend forms between the elevated portion on the holder. This elevation is adjustable and thus the bend is adjustment, therefore this reads on bending adjustment unit.
Regarding the argument that Tanka does not disclose the position of the bending portion: Tanka shows the bending portion and the light source (31) are disposed on the opposite side of the optical fiber holder (21, 22) interposing the rotation mechanism in the axial direction (see Figs. 3, 4; P0032, 0046), which reads on this limitation.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (JP 2017-21190A) (the reference and translation copies were provided in the 2/1/24 IDS) and Kanda et al (US 7,151,877 B2).
Tanaka teaches:
Claim 1: A fusion splicer (20, Fig. 3) comprising:
an optical fiber holder (21, 22) holding an optical fiber (10);
a rotation mechanism (part of 21) rotating the optical fiber holder around an axis extending along the optical fiber (10) (P0039);
a bending portion bending the optical fiber (10) (P0034, 0036);
a light source (31) allowing light from the side of the optical fiber (10) to be incident on the optical fiber bent by the bending portion (P0034, 0036); and
a power supply unit (part of 31) supplying power to the light source (31),
wherein a tip of the optical fiber (10) protrudes from an end of the optical fiber holder (21, 22) (see Fig. 3),
wherein the rotation mechanism (part of 21) is disposed on the opposite side of the end of the optical fiber holder (21, 22) in the axial direction extending along the optical fiber (10) (see Fig. 3),
wherein the bending portion and the light source (31) are disposed on the opposite side of the optical fiber holder (21, 22) interposing the rotation mechanism in the axial direction (see Figs. 3, 4; P0032, 0046).
Claim 4: The fusion splicer according to claim 1, comprising a reflection portion (the cladding 12 of one fiber reflects the light to the next fiber) reflecting light from the light source (31) toward the optical fiber (P0046).
Tanaka does not teach expressly wherein the bending portion includes a bending adjustment unit adjusting a bending amount of the optical fiber:
Claim 3: The fusion splicer according to claim 1, wherein the optical fiber holder has a pressure adjustment unit adjusting pressure applied to the optical fiber.
Kanda teaches a bending portion (21) including a bending adjustment unit (50) for adjusting a bending amount of an optical fiber(s) for fusion splicing (C5 L63 – C6 L18).
Bending the optical fibers with inherently increase the pressure applied to that portion of the fiber so the bending members (21) and the bending adjustment unit (50) together with the tensile strength of the fiber will “adjust pressure applied to the optical fiber”.
Tanaka and Kanda are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fiber fusion splicers.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fusion splicer of Tanaka to include a bending and pressure adjustment units as taught by Kanda.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for better alignment of the fiber ends to be spliced.
Tanaka and Kanda does not state:
Claim 2: The fusion splicer according to claim 1, further comprising a light source adjustment unit adjusting power supplied to the light source.
The limitation “adjusting power supplied to the light source” is broad enough to cover turning the light source off and on as being adjusting power supplied to the light source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try turning a light source on and off as needed, 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. Turning an LED source on and off is clearly predictable and would succeed in Tanaka and Kanda.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka and Kanda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hattori et al (US 6,668,128 B2).
Tanaka and Kanda teach the fusion splicer previously discussed.
Tanaka and Kanda do not teach expressly:
Claim 5: The fusion splicer according to claim 1, further comprising a holder stand with the optical fiber holder mounted on;
wherein the optical fiber holder is detachable from the holder stand.
Hattori teaches an optical fiber fusion splicer with a holder stand (4) with an optical fiber holder (3) mounted on and wherein the optical fiber holder (3) is detachable from the holder stand (4) (C6 L59 – C7 L31).
Tanaka, Kanda and Hattori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fiber fusion splicers.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fusion splicer of Tanaka and Kanda to include an optical fiber holder as taught by Hattori.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better support the fiber so the fiber(s) do not move during the splicing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
These claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a fusion splicer comprising the claimed fiber holder, rotation mechanism, bending portion, light source, power supply unit, wherein a pair of support portions configured to support both ends of a portion of the optical fiber to be bent, wherein a tip of the optical fiber protrudes from an end of the optical fiber holder, wherein the rotation mechanism is disposed on the opposite side of the end of the optical fiber holder in the axial direction extending along the optical fiber, wherein the bending portion and the light source are disposed on the opposite side of the optical fiber holder interposing the rotation mechanism in the axial direction, and wherein the bending portion includes a bending adjustment unit adjusting a bending amount of the optical fiber,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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