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, see page 8, filed 06/27/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 12 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Inoue et al. (US 5859944 A). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow. This Office action is therefore made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli et al. (US 20220043218 A1 - hereinafter “Borrelli) in view of Inoue et al. (US 5859944 A – hereinafter Inoue).
Regarding claim 9, Borrelli discloses ([0032]-[0033]; Figs. 5-6) a method of terminating an optical fiber (120) with a ferrule (102), wherein the ferrule has a front end (101 or 106; [0031]), a rear end (103; [0031]), and a ferrule bore (“hole” 102A) extending between the front end and the rear end (see FIG. 5A), wherein at least a portion of the ferrule bore define a micro-bore ([0031]-[0033] disclose dimensions of the ferrule bore 102A which are consistent with a micro-bore), the method comprising:
inserting the optical fiber into the micro-bore ([0033]); and
applying a laser treatment (“pulsed laser drilling”; [0032]) onto the ferrule to create at least one protrusion (“protuberances” 105; [0032] discloses that micro-bore 102A may be created using laser drilling, and [0033] discloses that the micro-bore may include protrusions 105, which implies that the laser drilling creates the protrusions, since they are part of the shape of the micro-bore; FIG. 6) along an inner surface of the micro-bore (“outer surface of hole” 107) wherein the at least one protrusion extends toward a longitudinal axis (“center” C) of the micro-bore (see FIG. 6).
Borrelli fails to teach that the at least one protrusion comprises a plurality of protrusions arranged in a helical pattern along a length of the ferrule bore.
Inoue discloses a ferrule (13J) having a bore (130) for accommodating an optical fiber (12), and at least one protrusion comprises a plurality of protrusions (between grooves 135d) arranged in a helical (spiral) pattern along a length of the ferrule bore (figs. 69-70; col. 46, lines 12-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form protrusions on the inner surface/wall of the Borrelli’s ferrule bore to enhance light-blocking ability (col. 45, line 61 through col. 46, line 2 and col. 46, lines 32-43), thus improve light transmission quality.
Regarding claim 10, Borrelli/Inoue additionally discloses wherein an annular gap (113; [0033]; FIG. 6) is defined upon insertion of the optical fiber (120) into the micro-bore (102A), the annular gap is between the inner surface of the micro-bore (107) and the outer surface of the optical fiber (unlabeled; [0033]: “when optical fiber 120 is inserted into hole 102A optical fiber 120 engages with protuberances 105 to define a gap 113 between outer surface of optical fiber 120 and outer surface 107 of hole 102A”);
wherein the at least one protrusion occupies a portion of the volume of the annular gap and contacts the optical fiber ([0033]; see FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Borrelli/Inoue additionally discloses wherein the at least one protrusion (105) comprises a plurality of protrusions that spans a circumference of the inner surface (107) (see FIG. 6 – three protrusions 105 are equally spaced around the inner surface, which the examiner takes as equivalent to spanning a circumference of the inner surface).
Regarding claim 13, Borrelli/Inoue additionally discloses wherein the at least one protrusion (105) has a height (“distance” DR; [0033]; FIG. 6) relative to the inner surface (107) of the micro-bore (102A) ranging between 1 micron and 5000 microns ([0033] discloses several ranges for height DR – 1-100 μm, 1-25 μm, 1-10 μm – all of which fall within the claimed range of 1-5000 μm, and a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range; see MPEP § 2131.03(I)).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli in view of Inoue, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Danley et al. US 2015/0219860 A1 (cited on IDS filed 18 August 2023; hereinafter “Danley”).
Regarding claim 14, Borrelli/Inoue does not teach heating or cooling the ferrule (12) as recited by the claim.
Danley teaches ([0042]-[0044]; FIGs. 7A-7D) a method of terminating an optical fiber (40) with a ferrule (12) having a micro-bore (30) comprising: heating the ferrule such that the micro-bore expands prior to inserting the optical fiber ([0042]: “Prior to inserting the end portion 44 of the optical fiber 40 into the ferrule bore 30, the ferrule 12 is heated by an energy source 70”); and cooling the ferrule such that the micro-bore contracts onto the optical fiber ([0042]: “At this point, the ferrule 12 is cooled so that the ferrule bore 30 decreases in diameter. Eventually the ferrule bore 30 decreases to a minimum bore diameter DB3 (FIG. 7D) as the inner surface of the ferrule bore 30 constricts around the outer surface of the end portion 44 of the optical fiber 40”). Heating the ferrule prior to inserting the optical fiber and subsequently cooling it makes inserting the optical fiber easier (as compared to inserting the fiber while the ferrule is in a cooled state) because the diameter of the micro-bore is in an expanded state during insertion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Danley, to perform the method of Borrelli/Inoue further comprising heating the ferrule (102) such that the micro-bore (102A) expands prior to inserting the optical fiber (120); and cooling the ferrule such that the micro-bore contracts onto the optical fiber for the purpose of making the fiber easier to insert into the ferrule, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 14.
Regarding claims 15-18, Borrelli/Inoue additionally teaches wherein the laser treatment comprises irradiating one or more locations on the inner surface of the ferrule bore (102A) with a laser beam ([0032] discloses that the ferrule bore is formed by pulsed laser drilling, which is understood to involve irradiating one or more locations on the inner surface of the ferrule bore with a laser beam), but does not explicitly teach the laser beam having a wavelength ranging between 0.3 nm and 20 nm (claim 15), the laser beam having a pulse width between 10 femtoseconds and 100 milliseconds, a repetition rate between 0 kHz and 200 kHz, and a power output of up to 100 W (claim 16), or the laser beam being applied onto the inner surface of the micro-bore in a direction which is either non-orthogonal (claim 17) or orthogonal (claim 18) to the longitudinal axis of the micro-bore. Borelli is generally silent as to the details of the laser treatment.
Danley teaches ([0042]-[0044]; FIGs. 7A-7D) a method of terminating an optical fiber (40) with a ferrule (12) having a ferrule bore (30) comprising: applying a laser treatment onto the ferrule, wherein the laser treatment comprises: irradiating the ferrule with a laser beam ([0044]: “irradiate the ferrule 12 with laser energy […] delivered by a laser beam 82”). Danley does not teach the specific values of wavelength, pulse width (i.e., beam shape), repetition rate (i.e., duty cycle), power output, and direction of application (i.e., angle) as specified by the instant claims, but Danley does teach that all of these quantities are result effective variables which should be taken into account as appropriate ([0044]: “selecting an appropriate combination of optical delivery properties of the laser 80, such as wavelength, power or fluence, duty cycle of pulses, beam shape, beam focus, etc., as well as how the laser is oriented (i.e., angled), positioned, and/or moved relative to the ferrule 12”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Danley, to perform the method of Borrelli/Inoue wherein the laser beam has a wavelength ranging between 0.3 nm and 20 nm (claim 15), a pulse width between 10 femtoseconds and 100 milliseconds, a repetition rate between 0 kHz and 200 kHz, and a power output of up to 100 W (claim 16), and wherein the laser beam is applied onto the inner surface of the micro-bore in either a non-orthogonal (claim 17) or orthogonal (claim 18) direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the micro-bore, thereby rendering obvious instant claims 15-18. Danley teaches that all of the claimed laser beam parameters as well as the angle at which the laser is pointed at the ferrule are result effective variables which will affect the heating and thus the formation of the ferrule. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to optimize these result effective variables in order to form the micro-bore into a desired shape. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). 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)).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli in view of Inoue, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bickham et al. US 2021/0157062 A1 (hereinafter “Bickham”).
Regarding claim 14, Borrelli/Inoue does not teach heating or cooling the ferrule (12) as recited by the claim.
Bickham teaches ([0050]-[0055]; FIGs. 4-6) a method of terminating an optical fiber (50) with a ferrule (12) having a micro-bore (“ferrule microhole” 38) comprising: heating the ferrule such that the micro-bore expands prior to inserting the optical fiber ([0050]); and cooling the ferrule such that the micro-bore contracts onto the optical fiber ([0055]). Heating the ferrule prior to inserting the optical fiber allows the diameter of the micro-bore to increase so that it is easier to insert the optical fiber ([0050]). Once the heating source is removed, the ferrule will naturally cool down and contract ([0055]), and contracting specifically onto the optical fiber is desirable in order to improve the positioning and alignment of the fiber ([0056]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Bickham, to perform the method of Borrelli/Inoue further comprising heating the ferrule (102) such that the micro-bore (102A) expands prior to inserting the optical fiber (120); and cooling the ferrule such that the micro-bore contracts onto the optical fiber, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 14. As taught by Bickham, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat the ferrule in order to make it easier to insert the optical fiber into the ferrule, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to cool the ferrule such that the micro-bore contracts onto the optical fiber in order to improve the positioning and alignment of the fiber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Uyen-Chau N. Le whose telephone number is (571)272-2397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Kiesha R. Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
