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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 August 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and Species B, corresponding to claims 9-19, in the reply filed on 19 March 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 20-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 19 March 2025 has been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-27 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-8 and 20-27 are withdrawn from further consideration as noted above.
Sixteen (16) replacement sheet(s) of drawings containing FIGs. 1-15 have been received and are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein the ferrule having” should read --wherein the ferrule has--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the optical fiber has a pull force of at least 2 pounds-force (lbf) as measured by IEC61753.” This limitation is indefinite because standard measurement processes are routinely updated and/or amended over time, and therefore this standard test procedure is a procedure that may be variable over time. Applicant has not indicated a date associated with the standard and has not provided any definition within the disclosure of the present application of the specific standard, IEC61753, that is recited in the claim. As such, it is impossible to determine what this limitation requires as claimed or required at the time of invention. The examiner suggests amending the claim to outline the specific requirements of the standard as supported by applicant’s specification, while cautioning applicant against the addition of new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borrelli et al. US 2022/0043218 A1 (hereinafter “Borrelli).
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).
Regarding claim 10, Borrelli 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 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli, 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 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 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 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 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 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrelli, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bickham et al. US 2021/0157062 A1 (hereinafter “Bickham”).
Regarding claim 14, Borrelli 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 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.
Regarding claim 19, Borrelli does not explicitly teach that the optical fiber (120) has a pull force of at least 2 pounds-force (lbf) as measured by IEC61753.
It is known in the art to terminate optical fibers with ferrules such that the optical fibers have a pull-force of at least 2 lbf. For example, 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), wherein the optical fiber has a pull force of at least 2 lbf ([0059]). Bickham does not explicitly teach that the pull force is measured according to IEC61753; however, it would be obvious to test the pull force of the optical fiber according to any industry standard for the purpose of increasing the number of applications where it would be considered suitable for use.
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 such that the optical fiber has a pull force of at least 2 lbf as measured by IEC61753 for the purpose of meeting a common industry standard and increasing the number of applications where the optical fiber would be considered suitable for use, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record (Borrelli; Danley; Bickham), which is the most relevant prior art known, does not anticipate or render obvious the limitation of claim 12 “wherein the at least one protrusion comprises a plurality of protrusions arranged in a helical pattern along a length of the ferrule bore” in combination with all the limitations of base claim 9. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to perform the method of the instant claims wherein the plurality of protrusions are disposed in a helical pattern as claimed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have no clear motivation to modify the method of Borrelli, alone or in combination with Danley and/or Bickham, to include this limitation.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Elkins, II et al. US 2024/0111101 A1. This document is a US Patent Application Publication from the same applicant and directed to very similar subject matter.
Barnette, Jr. et al. US 2016/0041346 A1. See FIGs. 5-7 and paragraph [0031].
Kaiser US 4,146,300 A. See FIG. 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA R. OXFORD whose telephone number is (703)756-1438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on (571)272-2397. 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.
/EMMA R. OXFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights