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 prior art documents submitted by the applicant in the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on November 20th, 2024 have all been considered by the examiner and made of record.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frelier (US5937123 A) in view of Monguzzi et al. (US5095517 A).
Regarding Claim 1; Frelier discloses an optical-fiber collimator comprising:
a holder (34) having a frontside, a backside, a through hole, and an outward-facing circumferential surface (Figs. 3-4)
the frontside having a planar surface orthogonal to a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4)
the outward-facing circumferential surface surrounding the longitudinal axis and defining a circular circumference centered on the longitudinal axis (34)
one of the frontside and backside having a recess (36) on the longitudinal axis
the through hole extending from the frontside to the backside along the axis
a bearing (20) having a spherical outer surface seated in the recess (36) (Figs. 1-4)
the center of curvature of the spherical outer surface being on the longitudinal axis when seated
an optical-fiber collimator (12/14/16/18) seated in a bore (28) through the bearing (20)
lateral dimensions of the optical-fiber collimator being undersized relative to the bore
the collimator facing in the same direction as the frontside (Figs. 3-4)
the optical-fiber collimator including an optical fiber (12) and collimation lens aligned along the axis (42) (Fig. 4)
Frelier does not expressly disclose that the collimation lens is seated in the bore.
Monguzzi et al. (Fig. 4) teaches a connectorized optical-fiber collimator having a holder (2a), a bearing (9a) with a bore where a collimation lens (15) is seated in the bore. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Frelier such that the collimation lens is seated in the bore, resulting in a more compact design.
Regarding Claim 2, Frelier discloses the outward-facing circumferential surface is cylindrical (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 3, Frelier does not expressly disclose that the outward-facing circumferential surface is spherical. One skilled in the art would understand that the outward-facing surface of the holder is configured to fit within an apparatus in which the connectorized optical-fiber collimator is used, and therefore its shape would be selected to fit the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to shape the outward-facing circumferential surface as spherical, to fit within an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4: Monguzzi et al. discloses outward-facing conical mating surfaces (14) used to engage the bearing, defining a circular circumference orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. (Col. 5, paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide the holder of Frelier with a conical outward-facing circumferential surface as taught by Monguzzi et al. as an alternative mating geometry.
Regarding Claim 5, Frelier discloses the planar surface has a non-zero radial extent, with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 6: Frelier further discloses a concave spherical surface (36) formed in the holder (Claim 3c), terminating in a circular edge at the interface with the planar surface (Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 7, selection of glass for optical alignment components is a known material choice in the optical arts due to thermal stability and machinability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to substitute glass for metal or polymer in the collimator as taught by Frelier.
Regarding Claim 8, Frelier teaches a complete spherical bearing (20) penetrated by a bore (28) (Figs 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the holder geometry from a block configuration to a disk configuration for packaging/mounting purposes.
Regarding Claim 9, Frelier explicitly discloses a spherical recess (36) receiving the spherical bearing (Col.1, paragraph 4) (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 10, Frelier discloses a recess (36) formed on one side of the holder (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to place the spherical recess at either side of the holder as an obvious positional variation of a known spherical alignment interface.
Regarding Claim 11, Frelier discloses a recess (36) formed on one side of the holder (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to place the spherical recess at either side of the holder as an obvious positional variation of a known spherical alignment interface.
Regarding Claim 12, Frelier discloses the bearing (20) seated in the recess (36) with portions of the bearing protruding beyond the holder surface during alignment (Claim 7d) (Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 13, Frelier discloses the spherical bearing and ferrule positioned between both sides of the holder (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 14, selection of glass for optical alignment components is a known material choice in the optical arts due to thermal stability and machinability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to substitute glass for metal or polymer in the collimator as taught by Frelier.
Regarding Claim 15, surface flatness tolerances represent routine optimization of machining precision. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide the planar surface of the collimating device of Frelier with the proper surface flatness to ensure optical alignment accuracy.
Regarding Claim 16, surface flatness tolerances represent routine optimization of machining precision. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide the cylindrical surface of the collimating device of Frelier with the proper surface flatness to ensure optical alignment accuracy.
Regarding Claim 17, Monguzzi et al. teaches a lens positioned such that its center coincides with the center of curvature of the spherical element (Col. 5, paragraph 9). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to position the lens of Frelier at the center of curvature of the spherical bearing for proper optical alignment.
Regarding Claim 18, Frelier discloses connectorized optical-fiber collimators with planar mounting surfaces supporting the housings of the collimators (Figs. 6-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to arrange two such collimators with their planar surfaces held parallel and their circumferential surfaces supported concentrically in order to achieve fiber-to-fiber coupling.
Regarding Claim 19, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide three rounded protrusions extending from the planar surface to contact another planar surface, as three-point contact arrangements are a well-known kinematic technique providing stable planar registration.
Regarding Claim 20, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide a bracket holding three spheres between planar surfaces as three-sphere kinematic mounting are well-known techniques for maintaining proper alignment.
Regarding Claim 21, Frelier discloses a cylindrical block supported by a cylindrical surface in the V-groove (66) formed by wedges (Figs. 6-8). The claimed wedge-supported mounting structure (84,94) is expressly disclosed (Claims 6-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 Hollweg can be reached at 5712701739. 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.
/NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874