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 Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed May 6, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not illustrate an optical fiber array, as required by claim 1, comprising: a groove plate having a plurality of grooves disposed on a top surface thereof; and an optical component plate having a plurality of lenses disposed on a first surface of the optical component plate facing the plurality of grooves and a plurality of prisms disposed on a second surface of the optical component plate, the second surface being opposite and parallel to the first surface;
wherein the plurality of prisms are individually formed optical elements protruding from the second surface;
wherein the plurality of prisms are coupled to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respectively disposed on the plurality of grooves.
Figures 2A-2C illustrate an optical fiber array (200) comprising a groove plate (21) having a plurality of grooves (211) disposed on a top surface thereof, and an optical component plate (22) having a plurality of lenses (221) disposed on a first surface of the optical component plate facing the plurality of grooves (211) and a plurality of prisms (222) disposed on a second surface of the optical component plate (22), the second surface being opposite and parallel to the first surface, wherein the plurality of prisms (222) are coupled to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses (221) and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respectively disposed on the plurality of grooves (211). The plurality of prisms (222), however, are not individually formed optical elements protruding from the second surface.
Referring to annotated Figure 2A below, it appears that the light is coupled from a first direction along the z-axis to a second direction along the y-axis by a reflective surface of the prisms in order to meet the limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figures 4A-4E illustrate a process for forming an optical component including a plurality of individually protruding prism features (222) on a side of an optical component plate (22) that is opposite to a side on which lenses (221) are formed, but this appears to be a separate embodiment b/c the illustrated prisms are not oriented in the same manner as the prisms 222 in Figure 2A. It’s unclear how the prisms illustrated in Figure 4E would function in the device of Figure 2A. Figure 4E appears to be a top down perspective, of the plate 22, so light would be coupled into the prisms in a direction that goes into and out of the page. Please see annotated Figure 4E below. Light coupled from the z-direction would not be reflected by the reflective surfaces of the prisms into the y-direction. Thus, the embodiment of Figure 4E is a different embodiment than the embodiment of Figure 2A and it’s unclear how the embodiment of Figure 4E could be used to coupled light into the optical fibers within the v-grooves (211).
PNG
media_image2.png
282
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birincioglu et al. (US 2008/0166136 A1; hereafter Birincioglu) in view of Lin (US 2013/0161495 A1), Sun et al. (US 2014/0099057 A1; hereafter Sun), and Haase et al. (WO 2014/055361 A1; hereafter Haase).
Regarding claims 1 and 2; Birincioglu discloses an optical fiber array (see Figure 7), comprising:
a groove plate (plate having v-grooves 14-1 through 14-5 formed in surface 16) having a plurality of grooves (14-1 through 14-5) disposed on a top surface (16) thereof; and
an optical component plate (plate including wall 20) having
a plurality of lenses (18-1 through 18-5) disposed on a first surface (20) of the optical component plate facing the plurality of grooves (14-1 through 14-5) and
a plurality of prisms (a plurality of portions of the reflective prismatic protrusion integrally formed with the optical component plate; see annotated Figures 1 and 7 below, the examiner notes that Figure 1 is an embodiment with a single v-groove, lens and prismatic protrusion, however the side profile of the array of Figure 7 would be the same, so Figure 1 is annotated below as well) disposed on a second surface (see annotated Figure 7 below) of the optical component plate, the second surface (second surface; see annotated Figures 1 and 7 below) being opposite and parallel to the first surface (20);
wherein a cross-sectional profile of each groove resembles a V (V-grooves; see paragraphs 22 and 28).
PNG
media_image3.png
342
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
324
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Birincioglu teaches that the light is coupled from the fiber (22) through the lens (18) and by the prisms (portions of the prismatic protrusion) to a photodiode (30). Birincioglu does not disclose that the plurality of prisms are coupled to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respectively disposed on the plurality of grooves. However, the optical fiber array of Birincioglu is capable of coupling light in the claimed manner.
The examiner notes that “to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respective disposed on the plurality of grooves" is an intended use of the optical fiber array. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
It is known in the art to couple optical fiber arrays to optical transmitting elements for the purpose of coupling light from the transmitting element into the optical fibers. Lin teaches that light from a laser-diode (203) may be coupled through a reflective prism element via reflective surface 2353, through a lens (25) and into an optical fiber (26) of an optical fiber array unit (20; see Figures 1 and 3). Sun teaches that light may be coupled from an optical signal transmitter (26) through a prism body (12) and a lens (142a) into an optical fiber (40a; see Figure 9) of an optical fiber array unit or coupled from a fiber (40b) of the same fiber array unit through a lens (142b) and the prism body (12) into an optical signal receiver (28).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to couple an optical transmitter to the optical fiber array unit of Birincioglu either in place of the optical receiver (30) or in addition to for the purpose of providing an optical transmitter and/or transceiver arrangement, since this use of optical fiber array devices is known in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Birincioglu does not disclose that the plurality of prisms are individually formed optical elements protruding from the second surface. Birincioglu discloses a plurality of prisms formed by a plurality of portions of the reflective prismatic protrusion (see annotated Figure 7 above). Haase teaches that a plurality of individually formed prisms (112, 213; see Figures 1a and 2a) may be included in an optical fiber array. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a plurality of individually formed prisms in alternative to the integrally formed prism portions disclosed by Birincioglu for redirecting light in an optical fiber array, since was a known alternative prism arrangement in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2024/0085645 A1; hereafter Hu) in view of Birincioglu et al. (US 2008/0166136 A1; hereafter Birincioglu), Lin (US 2013/0161495 A1), Sun et al. (US 2014/0099057 A1; hereafter Sun), and Haase et al. (WO 2014/055361 A1; hereafter Haase).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6; Hu discloses an optical fiber array (see Figures 2 and 4), comprising:
a groove plate (plate 2) having a plurality of grooves (grooves 22, 24, 25) disposed on a top surface (21) thereof; and
an optical component plate (3) having
a plurality of lenses (lenses 311) disposed on a first surface (31) of the optical component plate (3) facing the plurality of grooves (22, 24, 25) and
a second plurality of lenses (lenses 321) disposed on a second surface (32) of the optical component plate (3), the second surface (32) being opposite and parallel to the first surface (31);
wherein a cross-sectional profile of each groove resembles a V (see paragraph 6);
wherein the groove plate (2) further comprises:
two protrusions (longitudinal edge surfaces between grooves 24 and 25; see Figures 2, 3, and 4) disposed longitudinally at both ends of the groove plate (2), the protrusion being higher than a top end of the grooves (see Figure 3);
wherein a top surface of the optical component plate (3) is aligned with a top surface of the protrusions (see Figures 2-4); and
wherein the optical component plate (3) further comprises at least two guide pins (posts 34) disposed on the first surface (21) of the optical component plate (2).
Hu does not disclose a plurality of prisms in the embodiment of Figures 2 and 4, which illustrated the second plurality of lenses are provided to couple light in the same direction that light is propagating through the fiber array. However, Hu does teach that the lenses may be prisms (see paragraph 35) and illustrates the prism (at surface 32) in Figure 10.
Birincioglu teaches that light may be coupled in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which light is propagating through a fiber array by providing a prism (prismatic protrusion; see Figures 1 and 7 annotated below) between a first plurality of lenses (18-1 through 18-5) facing v-grooves (14-1 through 14-5) and a second plurality of lenses (26) to allow for the light to be coupled vertically to a desired location.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
324
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the second plurality of lenses (321) of Hu with a prism having a reflective face and having a second plurality of lenses formed thereon for the purpose of changing the propagation direction of light, since this arrangement is suggested by the prior art teachings and would not appear to result in an novel or unexpected advantages, wherein element 32 in Figure 10 of Hu is shaped like a prism with a reflective surface, Hu teaches that the element may be a prism (paragraph 35), and Birincioglu teaches that a prism is known to be provided in a similar arrangement to deflect light.
Hu and Birincioglu teach that the light is coupled from the fibers (12 of Hu) through the lenses (311) and by the prisms (portions of the prismatic protrusion; reflective surface 32 of prism regions) to a light receiver (42). Hu does not disclose that the plurality of prisms are coupled to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respectively disposed on the plurality of grooves. However, the optical fiber array of Hu is capable of coupling light in the claimed manner.
The examiner notes that “to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respective disposed on the plurality of grooves" is an intended use of the optical fiber array. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
It is known in the art to couple optical fiber arrays to optical transmitting elements for the purpose of coupling light from the transmitting element into the optical fibers. Lin teaches that light from a laser-diode (203) may be coupled through a reflective prism element via reflective surface 2353, through a lens (25) and into an optical fiber (26) of an optical fiber array unit (20; see Figures 1 and 3). Sun teaches that light may be coupled from an optical signal transmitter (26) through a prism body (12) and a lens (142a) into an optical fiber (40a; see Figure 9) of an optical fiber array unit or coupled from a fiber (40b) of the same fiber array unit through a lens (142b) and the prism body (12) into an optical signal receiver (28).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to couple an optical transmitter to the optical fiber array unit of Hu either in place of the optical receiver (42) or in addition to for the purpose of providing an optical transmitter and/or transceiver arrangement, since this use of optical fiber array devices is known in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Hu and Birincioglu do not disclose that the plurality of prisms are individually formed optical elements protruding from the second surface. Hu discloses integrally formed prisms (32; see Figure 10). Birincioglu discloses a plurality of prisms formed by a plurality of portions of the reflective prismatic protrusion (see annotated Figure 7 above). Haase teaches that a plurality of individually formed prisms (112, 213; see Figures 1a and 2a) may be included in an optical fiber array. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a plurality of individually formed prisms in alternative to the integrally formed prism portions disclosed by Hu and Birincioglu for redirecting light in an optical fiber array, since was a known alternative prism arrangement in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 at 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights