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 .
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 06/17/2026 has been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection. The relevant limitations of claim 1 are now disclosed by Wang (CN 109633828 A).
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 Wang (CN 109633828 A) in view of Abumi (US 20180113260 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Wang discloses a positioning arrangement for positioning optical fibers, the positioning arrangement comprising:
a positioning substrate including a fiber receiving location (Wang/Fig3/Fiber positioning substrate [Unlabeled; Shaded portion beneath element 4] and fiber receiving location 1), the fiber receiving location configured to receive an optical fiber (Fig3/Optical fiber 4), the fiber receiving location including a first fiber contact surface and a second fiber contact surface each adapted to contact the optical fiber when the optical fiber is received in the fiber receiving location (Fig3/Contact surfaces [A and B as indicated below]), the first and second fiber contact surfaces of the fiber receiving location being relatively oriented to define a fiber receiving angle that is equal to or greater than 100 degrees as measured at a contact point between the optical fiber and each of the first and second fiber contact surfaces (Fig3/Angle theta and contact point [Unlabeled; Vertex defined by angle theta]; Paragraph 8/“…a V-shaped groove which is set in the V-shaped groove of the multi-core optical fibre and the cover plate of the V-shaped groove and multi-core optical fibre is pressed in the V-shaped groove of the two side wall on the cover plate, an opening corner of the V-shaped groove is 100 degrees to 120 degrees…”); and
PNG
media_image1.png
313
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pressing structure including a pressing surface opposing the fiber receiving location to press the optical fiber within the fiber receiving location (Fig3/Pressing structure 2).
Wang is silent regarding a plurality of the fiber receiving locations. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple fiber receiving locations within the arrangement of Wang, since doing so would multiply data transmission capacity and facilitate simultaneous, independent signal transmission. Wang 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. However, the practice of stacking fiber positioning arrangements inside a connector body exists in the art as exemplified by Abumi.
Wang and Abumi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical connector components. Wang 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.
With regards to claims 3 and 4, Wang and Abumi, 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 (Wang/Fig3; Paragraph 8/“…a V-shaped groove which is set in the V-shaped groove of the multi-core optical fibre and the cover plate of the V-shaped groove and multi-core optical fibre is pressed in the V-shaped groove of the two side wall on the cover plate, an opening corner of the V-shaped groove is 100 degrees to 120 degrees…”).
With regards to claim 5, Wang and Abumi together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 1, wherein the positioning substrate and the pressing structure are incorporated in a fiber optic connector (Abumi/Figs1-4/Connector 1).
With regards to claim 7, Wang and Abumi 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, Wang and Abumi together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 1, wherein the positioning substrate and the pressing structure are incorporated in a bare fiber alignment device (Wang/Fig3/Bare fiber 4 and positioning arrangement [Entire device as shown]).
With regards to claim 10, Wang and Abumi together disclose the positioning arrangement of claim 9, wherein each the plurality of bare fiber alignment devices include a first side and opposite second side (Wang/Fig3/First and second sides [A and B as indicated below]), 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 (Wang/Fig3/Pressing surface [Unlabeled; defined by position of F0]), 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 (Wang/Fig3).
PNG
media_image2.png
313
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 109633828 A) and Abumi (US 20180113260 A1) as applied to claim 5 above in view of Leigh (US 20160195681 A1).
With regards to claim 6, Imaki and Abumi 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. Wang, Abumi, 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 Abumi since doing so would grant improved environmental protection to the fibers within the arrangement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
With regards to claim 11, the claim clearly defines novel aspects of a groove-fiber arrangement which are not established in claim 1, said aspects contributing to advantageous properties of the arrangement relating to spacing and force distribution. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a positioning arrangement for positioning optical fibers, the positioning arrangement comprising: a positioning substrate including a plurality of parallel fiber receiving grooves arranged in a row, each of the fiber receiving grooves being configured to receive two of the optical fibers, each of the fiber receiving grooves being defined by a bed surface and first and second angled surfaces, wherein the first and second angled surfaces are defined by lateral faces of first and second projections extending upwardly from a base of the positioning substrate, the first angled surfaces and the bed surfaces cooperating to define first fiber receiving locations of each of the fiber receiving grooves, the second angled surfaces and the bed surfaces cooperating to define second fiber receiving locations of each of the fiber receiving grooves, each of the first and second fiber receiving locations defining a fiber receiving angle greater than 90 degrees as measured at the contact point between the optical fiber and the angled surface, the first and second fiber receiving locations 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 a pressing structure including first and second pressing surfaces opposing the first and second fiber receiving locations to press the optical fibers within the first and second fiber receiving locations, wherein each projection is positioned to align with a midpoint between the first and second pressing surfaces and having a truncated peak. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth in the previous rejection.
Claims 12-20 inherit the allowability of claim 11 on which they depend.
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 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
Prosecution Insights