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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/21/2026 has been considered and entered.
The objection to the claims set forth in the office action mailed 10/21/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 regarding the rejection(s) of claim 1 (and associated dependent claims) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that “…Abumi's stacked fiber guides (element 3 in Figs. 2-3) operate on fundamentally different principles than the claimed invention…” (Lines 21-22 of page 6 of the remarks received 01/21/2026). However, examiner respectfully points out that the principle of operation of Abumi’s individual fiber guides is not being relied upon - only the principle of operation behind the stack itself. Abumi is being relied upon for teachings related to organization of a plurality of fiber arrays and the implementation of said arrays in optical connections.
The principle of operation of Abumi is defined by the organization of a plurality of fiber arrays and the implementation of said arrays in optical connections (Shown at least in figure 2 of Abumi). The principle of operation of Imaki is defined by the organization of fibers within a fiber array (Shown at least in figure 14c of Imaki). Thus, the principle of organizing a plurality of fiber arrays to function as connector bodies demonstrated by Abumi is compatible with the principle of operation of organizing a plurality of fibers in a fiber array demonstrated by Imaki.
Applicant has also argued that “…There is no suggestion in either reference that one skilled in the art would apply Fukuyama's multi-depth angle approach to Imaki's fiber contact surfaces…”. However, examiner respectfully points out that no suggestions relating to multiple depths are being relied upon. Fukuyama is only being relied upon to suggest the selection of a particular value for an existing obtuse angle employed in a fiber receiving capacity.
Imaki discloses an obtuse angle used in a fiber receiving capacity (Shown at least in figure 14c of Imaki). What Imaki does not disclose is a specific value for said obtuse angle. Fukuyama is being relied upon to disclose the selection of a specific value for an obtuse angle that is used in a fiber receiving capacity. Both Imaki and Fukuyama disclose fiber arrangements wherein a fiber with a circular cross-section lies within a location including a plurality of flat surfaces joined by an angle of less than 180 degrees.
Furthermore, even if the purview of Fukuyama was incompatible with that of Imaki (Which is not conceded), the lack of a specific magnitude for the obtuse receiving angle of Imaki would not render claim 1 patentable over Imaki at least because 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).
In either case, the presence of a particular value for an obtuse fiber receiving angle does not inherently render claim 1 as patentable over Imaki because it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a value for said obtuse angle that would be appropriate for the purpose of interfacing with the fibers within the array.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the rejection(s) of claim 11 (and associated dependent claims) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds for rejection.
Huang (US 20140086546 A1) has been added as a supporting reference relating to the claim elements specifically addressed in applicants’ argument.
Examiner’s note: While Huang is not currently relied upon for the rejection of claim 1, examiner notes that Huang (US 20140086546 A1) also discloses structure of particular relevance to the limitations of claim 1, in addition to those of claim 11.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaki (US 20040105650 A1) in view of Abumi (US 20180113260 A1) and in further view of Fukuyama (US 20020104331 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Imaki discloses a positioning arrangement for positioning optical fibers, the positioning arrangement comprising:
a positioning substrate (Imaki/Fig14a-c/Positioning substrate 51 [Substrate]) including a plurality of fiber receiving locations (Fig14a-c/Locations as shown below [Dashed boxes]) arranged in a row,
PNG
media_image1.png
159
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each of the fiber receiving locations being configured to receive one of the optical fibers (Fig14a-c/Optical fibers 11 [Optical fibers]), each of the fiber receiving locations including a first fiber contact surface (First fiber contact surface as shown below [Left]) and a second fiber contact surface (Second contact surface as shown below [Right]) each adapted to contact a corresponding one of the optical fibers when the optical fiber is received in the fiber receiving location, and
PNG
media_image2.png
108
133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
108
133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a pressing structure including pressing surfaces for opposing the row of fiber receiving locations to press the optical fibers within the fiber receiving locations (Fig14a-c/Pressing structure 52 [Cover member]).
Imaki is silent regarding the positioning arrangement existing within a connector body and by extension, a plurality of the positioning arrangements being stacked inside the connector body to position the optical fibers in a plurality of parallel rows. In addition, while Imaki does disclose the first and second fiber contact surfaces of each of the fiber receiving locations being relatively oriented to define a fiber receiving angle that is obtuse (Fig14a-c), Imaki does not specifically disclose the contact surfaces defining a fiber receiving angle that is equal to or greater than 100 degrees. However, the practices of stacking fiber positioning arrangements inside a connector body and of selecting a value of 100 or more for an obtuse fiber receiving angle exists in the art as exemplified by Abumi and Fukuyama respectively.
Imaki and Abumi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connector components. Imaki discloses a fiber positioning arrangement. Abumi discloses a plurality of fiber positioning arrangements stacked within a connector body to position the optical fibers in a plurality of parallel rows (Abumi/Fig2/Connector body 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the positioning arrangement disclosed by Imaki such that a plurality of the positioning arrangements could be stacked within a connector body as suggested by Abumi since doing so would allow for protection and organization of a plurality of the positioning arrangements.
Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama are considered to be analogous in the field of fiber positioning arrangements. Fukuyama teaches a fiber positioning arrangement with fiber receiving angles equal to or greater than 100 degrees (Fukuyama/Fig1; Paragraph 41/Lines 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a value of 100 or more as the magnitude of the fiber receiving angles in the fiber positioning arrangement disclosed by Imaki and Abumi as suggested by Fukuyama, since doing so would result in less empty and unused space than would be created by a smaller receiving angle.
With regards to claims 3 and 4, Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama together disclose the fiber positioning arrangement of claim 1, wherein the fiber receiving angles are equal to or greater than 110 and/or 120 degrees (Imaki/Fig14a-c; Fukuyama/Fig1; Fukuyama/Paragraph 41/Lines 8-10).
With regards to claim 5, Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 1, wherein the positioning substrate and the pressing structure are incorporated in a fiber optic connector (Paragraphs 2-4; Paragraph 4/Lines 14-16).
With regards to claim 7, Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 5, wherein the positioning substrate and the pressing structure position the optical fibers within a connector body (Abumi/Fig2-3/Elements 3, 4, and 5 [Fiber guide, holder, and fibers respectively]).
With regards to claim 9, Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 1, wherein the positioning substrate and the pressing structure are incorporated in a bare fiber alignment device (Fig14a-c/Bare fiber alignment device 50 [Optical fiber aligning implement]).
With regards to claim 10, Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 9, wherein each the plurality of bare fiber alignment devices include a first side (Imaki/Fig14a-c/Side of element 51 defined by element 33) and opposite second side (Imaki/Fig14a-c/Side of element 52 defined by element 34), and wherein at least some of the first sides comprise a positioning substrate and at least some of the second sides comprise a pressing surface, such that each positioning arrangement is formed by the positioning substrate of a first side of a first bare fiber alignment device and the pressing surfaces of a second side of a second bare fiber alignment device (Imaki/Fig14a-c).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaki (US 20040105650 A1, Abumi (US 20180113260 A1), and Fukuyama (US 20020104331 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Leigh (US 20160195681 A1).
With regards to claim 6, Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 5, but are silent regarding the presence of shutters. However, the use of shutters near fiber receiving locations exists in the art as exemplified by Leigh. Imaki, Abumi, Fukuyama, and Leigh are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connector components.
Leigh teaches a shutter-inclusive optical connector (Leigh/Fig5a-b/Shutter 506 [Shutter]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shutter as suggested by Leigh within the positioning arrangement disclosed by Imaki, Abumi, and Fukuyama since doing so would grant improved environmental protection to the fibers within the arrangement.
Claims 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaki (US 20040105650 A1) in view of Huang (US 20140086546 A1).
With regards to claim 11, Imaki discloses a positioning arrangement for positioning optical fibers, the positioning arrangement comprising:
a positioning substrate (Imaki/Fig15a/Positioning substrate 51 [Substrate]) including a plurality of parallel fiber receiving grooves (Fig15a/Grooves as shown below [Dashed boxes]) arranged in a row,
PNG
media_image4.png
236
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
each of the fiber receiving grooves being defined by a bed surface (Fig15a/Bottom surface of groove) and first and second angled surfaces (Fig15a/Left and right surfaces of groove, respectively), fiber receiving locations defining a fiber receiving angle greater than 90 degrees (Figs 14a and 15a); and
a pressing structure including pressing surfaces to press the optical fibers within the fiber receiving locations (Fig15a/Pressing structure 52 [Cover member]).
Imaki is silent regarding
each fiber receiving groove being configured to receive two of the optical fibers and by extension; the first angled surfaces and the bed surfaces cooperating to define first fiber receiving locations of each of the fiber receiving grooves and the pressing structure including first and second pressing surfaces opposing the first and second fiber receiving locations,
regarding the second angled surfaces and the bed surfaces cooperating to define second fiber receiving locations of each of the fiber receiving grooves,
regarding the first and second fiber receiving locations being separated by the bed surface, the bed surface defined between a first and second projection extending upwardly from a base of the positioning substrate, and
regarding each projection being positioned to align with a midpoint between the first and second pressing surfaces and having a truncated peak.
However, the practice of including the above features in a fiber positioning arrangement exists in the art as exemplified by Huang.
Imaki and Huang are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connector components. Huang teaches a fiber receiving groove configured to receive multiple optical fibers (Huang/Receiving groove [Space between elements 42]), wherein first and second angled surfaces define first and second fiber receiving locations (Huang/First and second angled surfaces as indicated below),
PNG
media_image5.png
266
601
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the pressing structure including first and second pressing surfaces opposing the first and second fiber receiving locations, the first and second fiber receiving locations being separated by the bed surface (Huang/Bed surface as indicated below), the bed surface defined between a first and second projection extending upwardly from a base of the positioning substrate (Huang/First and second projections 42), wherein each projection is positioned to align with a midpoint between first and second pressing surfaces and having a truncated peak (Huang/Shape and locations of elements 42).
PNG
media_image6.png
266
601
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the positioning arrangement disclosed by Imaki such that it houses two optical fibers, includes first and second angled surfaces define first and second fiber receiving locations separated by the bed surface, and is configured such that the bed surface is defined between a first and second projection extending upwardly from a base of the positioning substrate, and is configured such that each projection is positioned to align with a midpoint between first and second pressing surfaces and having a truncated peak as suggested by Huang since doing so would facilitate the transmission of a greater degree of information.
With regards to claim 15, Imaki and Huang together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 11, wherein the positioning substrate and the pressing structure are incorporated in a fiber optic connector (Imaki/Paragraphs 2-4; Paragraph 4/Lines 14-16).
With regards to claim 19, Imaki and Huang together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 11, wherein the positioning substrate and the pressing structure are incorporated in a bare fiber alignment device (Fig14a-c/Bare fiber alignment device 50 [Optical fiber aligning implement]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaki (US 20040105650 A1) and Huang (US 20140086546 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Fukuyama (US 20020104331 A1).
With regards to claims 12-14, Imaki and Huang together disclose the fiber positioning arrangement of claim 11, but are silent regarding whether or not the fiber receiving angles are equal to or greater than 100, 120, and/or 120 degrees. However, the practice of configuring fiber receiving angles to be greater than 120 degrees exists in the art as exemplified by Fukuyama. Imaki and Fukuyama are considered to be analogous in the field of fiber positioning arrangements.
Fukuyama teaches a fiber positioning arrangement with fiber receiving angles equal to or greater than 120 degrees (Fukuyama/Fig1; Paragraph 41/Lines 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a value of 120 or more as the magnitude of the fiber receiving angles in the fiber positioning arrangement disclosed by Imaki, and Huang as suggested by Fukuyama, since doing so would result in less empty and unused space than would be created by a smaller receiving angle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaki (US 20040105650 A1) and Huang (US 20140086546 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Leigh (US 20160195681 A1).
With regards to claim 16, Imaki and Huang together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 15, but are silent regarding the presence of shutters. However, the use of shutters near fiber receiving locations exists in the art as exemplified by Leigh.
Imaki, Huang, and Leigh are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connector components. Leigh teaches a shutter-inclusive optical connector (Leigh/Fig5a-b/Shutter 506 [Shutter]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shutter as suggested by Leigh within the positioning arrangement disclosed by Imaki and Huang since doing so would grant improved environmental protection to the fibers within the arrangement.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaki (US 20040105650 A1) and Huang (US 20140086546 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Abumi (US 20180113260 A1).
With regards to claim 17, Imaki and Huang together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 15, but are silent regarding whether or not the positioning substrate and the pressing structure position the optical fibers within a connector body. However, the practice of configuring positioning arrangements to position fibers within a connector exists in the art, as exemplified by Abumi. Imaki, Huang, and Abumi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connector components.
Abumi discloses fiber arrangements configured to position fibers within a connector body (Abumi/Fig2-3/Elements 3, 4, and 5 [Fiber guide, holder, and fibers respectively]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the positioning arrangement disclosed by Imaki and Huang such that it positioned fibers within a connector body as suggested by Abumi since doing so would yield greater fiber protection and ease of use.
With regards to claim 18, Imaki, Huang, and Abumi together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 17, wherein a plurality of the positioning substrates and pressing structures are stacked within the connector body to position the optical fibers in a plurality of parallel rows within the connector body (Abumi/Figs1-2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaki (US 20040105650 A1) and Huang (US 20140086546 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Abumi (US 20180113260 A1).
With regards to claim 20, Imaki, and Huang together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 19, wherein each the plurality of bare fiber alignment devices include a first side (Imaki/Fig14a-c/Side of element 51 defined by element 33) and opposite second side (Imaki/Fig14a-c/Side of element 52 defined by element 34), and wherein at least some of the first sides comprise a positioning substrate and at least some of the second sides comprise a pressing surface, such that each positioning arrangement is formed by the positioning substrate of a first side of a first bare fiber alignment device and the pressing surfaces of a second side of a second bare fiber alignment device (Imaki/Fig14a-c). Imaki and Huang are silent regarding whether or not a plurality of bare fiber alignment devices are stacked. However, the practice of stacking fiber alignment structures exists in the art as exemplified by Abumi.
Imaki, Huang, and Abumi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connector components. Abumi discloses stacked fiber positioning arrangements (Abumi/Fig2/Fiber positioning arrangements 3 [Fiber guides]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack multiple of the fiber alignment devices disclosed by Imaki and Huang as suggested by Abumi since doing so would allow for a greater number of fiber connections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874