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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on December 4, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's traversal of the restriction of claims 8-14, is acknowledged. On page 6, Applicant states the traversal is on the ground(s) that the reasoning on September 5, 2025 was not provided earlier. However, that is not enough to overcome the Restriction Requirement because the reasoning itself is not rebutted.
On pages 6-7 of the response, Applicant states that “the asserted inventions are inappropriately identified” due to “newly presented claim 27.” The fact that Applicant has to resort to adding a new claim in an attempt to link the two inventions is evidence that the Restriction Requirement was indeed proper.
Further, if Applicant is using subject matter from dependent claims to link inventions together, then the reverse should also apply, wherein subject matter from dependent claims can further differentiate the inventions. Applicant is respectfully directed to claim 9, which recites “the fiber bundle comprises a first portion, a second portion… and a third portion”; claim 10 which recites “the fiber bundle further comprises a first dispensing region; and a second dispensing region”; and claim 14 which recites “the fiber bundle comprises: a first vertical shift zone, a second vertical shift zone” - none of which are in the Invention I.
Given this, the Restriction Requirement is maintained.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 21, “from fiber bundle” should be changed to “from the fiber bundle” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shubin et al. (US 9698564 B1) in view of Toda et al. (US 2022/0196941 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shubin discloses an optical device comprising: a substrate material (136 in Fig. 1); and optical fiber openings extending from a first side of the substrate material to a second side of the substrate material, wherein the optical fiber openings at the first side of the substrate material are shifted either horizontally or vertically from the second side of the substrate material (column 7, lines 32-44 and column 8, lines 37-50 describe routing with different pitches at the input and output surfaces).
Still regarding claim 1, Shubin teaches the claimed invention except for optical fibers continuing to extend out of the substrate. Toda discloses an optical device (820 in Figs. 8A-8B) comprising a substrate material (825) wherein continuous optical fibers (822) extend through respective optical fiber openings and continue to extend out of the substrate material in multiple directions. Since both inventions relate to optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have the optical fibers continuing to extend out of the substrate as disclosed by Toda in the optical device of Shubin for the purpose of allowing flexibility and versatility in the arrangement of the optical fibers.
Regarding claim 2, Shubin discloses optical fibers (146) extending through respective ones of the optical fiber openings.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the proposed combination of Shubin and Toda teaches the claimed invention except for the substrate material is movable along the optical fibers. However, Shubin discloses actively aligning the optical components, wherein the position with the highest detected optical signal is determined and subsequently using an adhesive to secure the aligned assembly in column 5, lines 38-46. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have the substrate material movable along the optical fibers and subsequently using an adhesive to attach the substrate material to the optical fibers for the purpose of actively aligning each of the optical fibers within the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Shubin discloses a ferrule attached to the optical fibers in column 6, lines 60-62.
Regarding claim 6, Shubin discloses a fiber array unit (114; column 7, lines 32-44 describes multiple optical channels forming an array in photonic chip 114) attached to the optical fibers on an opposite side of the substrate material from the ferrule.
Regarding claim 7, Shubin discloses the optical fiber openings are aligned in a single row at the second side of the substrate material in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 21, Shubin discloses optical device comprising: a fiber bundle (136 in Fig. 1), the fiber bundle comprising: a substrate material (material of 136 which surrounds fibers is a planar substrate); and a plurality of optical fiber openings extending through the substrate material, wherein the plurality of optical fiber openings at a first side of the substrate material are shifted either horizontally or vertically from a second side of the substrate material (column 7, lines 32-44 and column 8, lines 37-50 describe routing with different pitches at the input and output surfaces); and a plurality of optical fibers (146) constrained by the fiber bundle.
Still regarding claim 21, Shubin teaches the claimed invention except for optical fibers extending away from the fiber bundle. Toda discloses an optical device (820 in Figs. 8A-8B) comprising a fiber bundle comprising a substrate material (825) wherein a plurality of optical fibers (822) are constrained by the fiber bundle, and at least one of the plurality of optical fibers continuously extends away from the fiber bundle in at least two directions. Since both inventions relate to optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have the optical fibers continuing to extend away from the fiber bundle as disclosed by Toda in the optical device of Shubin for the purpose of allowing more flexibility and versatility in the arrangement of the optical fibers.
Regarding claim 22, the proposed combination of Shubin and Toda teaches the claimed invention except for the fiber bundle comprises a first portion of the fiber bundle rotatable relative to a second portion of the fiber bundle. However, Shubin discloses actively aligning the optical components, wherein the position with the highest detected optical signal is determined and subsequently using an adhesive to secure the aligned assembly in column 5, lines 38-46. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to the form a first portion of the fiber bundle as a cover or lid rotatable relative to a second portion of the fiber bundle for the purpose of closing the cover or lid after the fibers are aligned into the optimal positions.
Regarding claim 23, Shubin discloses the plurality of optical fiber openings comprises a first vertical shift zone, a second vertical shift zone (path of 146 includes a concave upward curve as well as a concave downward curve, each of which constitutes a vertical shift zone), and a first horizontal shift zone (column 7, lines 32-44 and column 8, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 24, Shubin discloses buffer regions which separate the first vertical shift zone, the second vertical shift zone, and the first horizontal shift zone, since the claim does not specify the particular structure or material of the buffer region and thus the material of the WFC 136 between each of the shift zones constitutes a buffer region.
Regarding claim 25, Shubin discloses an outer coating of a ribbon located around a first portion of the plurality of optical fibers since a thin layer of the WFC 136 material around the optical fibers constitutes an outer coating of a ribbon.
Regarding claim 26, the proposed combination of Shubin and Toda teaches the claimed invention except for a dummy fiber constrained with the fiber bundle. However, dummy fibers are ubiquitous in the art of optical fibers and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a dummy fiber in order to not transmit a signal to a particular output or act as a spacer.
Regarding claim 27, Toda in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the substrate material is a fiber bundle surrounding the optical fibers between a ferrule (824) and a fiber array unit (paragraph 0056 discloses opposite end of fibers is inserted into v-grooves of an optics die).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 11, 2026