DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 07 April 2026.
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 .
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) 1-6, 10, 12-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0084200 to Meis et al.
In regards to claims 1 and 17, Meis recites an optical assembly comprising a connection device [0047] and a plurality of optical fiber boards connected via the connection device, wherein each of the plurality of optical fiber boards (Figures 3a-3c) comprises: first (26) and second (30) base boards superposed on each other and being adjacent baseboards, wherein each of the first and second base boards comprises a first surface being an upward surface and a second surface being a downward surface, the first and the second surface are opposite to each other; and the second surface of the first base board is superposed on the first surface of the second base board ([0032; folded]); and a first optical fiber (22 & 42 together) having a first part, a second part, and a third part, wherein the first part is connected to the second part via the third part, the first part is disposed on the first surface of the first base board, and the second part is disposed on the first surface of the second base board (Figures 6-9; [0036-0037]).
In regards to claim 2, Meis recites a second optical fiber disposed on the first surface of the first base board.
In regards to claims 3 and 19, Meis recites an adhesive (70) is disposed on the second surface of the first base board, and is configured to stick the first surface of second base board to the second surface of the first base board.
In regards to claims 4 and 20, Meis recites an adhesive is disposed on the first surfaces of the first and second base boards, and is configured to stick and fasten the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber to the first surfaces of the first and second base boards.
In regards to claim 5, Meis recites a plurality of ports (80 voids) are disposed at side edges of the first surfaces of the first and second base boards, and are configured to place two ends of the first optical fiber and two ends of the second optical fiber. [0043]
In regards to claim 6, Meis recites a first end of the first optical fiber disposed on first surfaces of the first base board and the second base board is located at one side edge of the first base board and extends to the second base board. (Figure 1)
In regards to claim 10, Meis recites a method for manufacturing an optical fiber board (Figures 3a-3c), comprising: arranging first (26) and second (30) base boards on a plane, wherein each of the first and second base boards comprises a first surface being an upward surface and a second surface being a downward surface, and the first and second surface are opposite to each other; disposing a first optical fiber (22 & 42 together) on the first surfaces of the first and second base boards, wherein the first optical fiber comprises a first part, a second part and a third part, the first part is connected to the second part using the third part, the first part is disposed on the first surface of the first base board, and the second part is disposed on the first surface of the second base board; folding ([0032]) the first base board by a first angle in a normal direction of the corresponding first surface, and then rotating the first base board by a second angle along the plane [0028], to enable the first base board to be above the second base board, wherein the first base board and the second base board are two adjacent base boards; and superposing (Figure 1c) the second surface of the first base board on the first surface of the second base board.
In regards to claim 12, Meis recites fastening (70) the first optical fiber to the first surfaces of the first and second base boards.
In regards to claim 13, Meis recites fastening the first optical fiber to the first surfaces of the first and second base boards comprises: disposing an adhesive (70) on the first and second base boards to stick and fasten the first optical fiber to the first surfaces of the first and second base boards.
In regards to claim 14, Meis recites superposing (Figure 1c) the second surface of the first base board on the first surface of the second base board comprises: disposing an adhesive on the second surface of the first base board to stick the first surface of the second base board to the second surface of the first base board.
In regards to claim 15, Meis recites arranging a second optical fiber on the first surface of the first base board.
In regards to claim 18, Meis recites each optical fiber board further comprises a second optical fiber disposed on the first surface of the first base board.
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) 7-9, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0084200 to Meis et al as applied to claims 1 and 10 above.
In regards to claims 7 and 11, although Meis does not expressly recite an area of the first and second base boards is not less than an area of a minimum circle formed by bending the second optical fiber, Meis does teach routing the fibers so that the amount of bending force prevents stresses and bending loss [0006, 0037]. Since the base structure of the device/method is recited by Meis, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to have provided an area of the first and second base boards is not less than an area of a minimum circle formed by bending the second optical fiber. It would have required no undue burden or experimentation to arrive at the area of the first and second base boards is not less than an area of a minimum circle formed by bending the second optical fiber since it would be advantageous not to bend the fibers to induce unwanted stress or less as taught by Meis. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided an area of the first and second base boards is not less than an area of a minimum circle formed by bending the second optical fiber.
In regards to claim 8, although Meis fails to expressly recite the first and second base boards are thin boards made of a polyimide material, the use of a polyimide material in stacked base boards is common skill and an obvious matter of design choice. Polyimide materials are readily and commercially available and chosen for their thermal stability properties and flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the first and second base boards are thin boards made of a polyimide material.
In regards to claims 9 and 16, although Meis does not expressly recite a protective sleeve disposed on the third part of the first optical fiber, Meis teaches the optical fibers to be additionally protected by additional lamination layers (now shown) [0028]. Since protective sleeves are commonly chosen protective barriers for optical fibers, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a protective sleeve disposed on the third part of the first optical fiber for the purpose disclosed by Meis [0028].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. While the current rejection still relies on Mei, the previous rejection to Mei relied on Figures 1a-1c. The current rejection relies on Mei’s Figures 3a-3c.
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 TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights