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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 01/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection
The objection to claim 1 is overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s arguments that Schmidt fails to anticipate claim 1 have been fully considered, however, those arguments are moot. The present action does not rely on Schmidt to teach any of the claim elements challenged in these arguments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that claims 2, 3, 12, and 18-20 are not obvious over Schmidt alone, however, these arguments are moot. Schmidt is not relied on as a reference to teach any subject matter challenged in these arguments.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that Chivers is not cited to cure the deficiencies in Schmidt, however, this argument is moot, as the present action does not rely on Schmidt, so does not require Chivers cure any deficiencies thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues first that Schmidt does not teach certain claim limitations, however, this argument is moot, as the present action does not rely on Schmidt to do so.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues second that Chivers teaches storing information to facilitate calibration on an individual connector basis and not about a polishing holder having multiple apertures, however, this argument is moot. The present action relies on Koudelka, not Chivers, to teach the use of a polishing holder having multiple apertures.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues third that Chivers does not teach correlating XY tilt data to a reference surface or to the optical axis or imaging plane of an interferometer, however, this argument is not persuasive. By recording the orientation of the reference connector and ensuring that its orientation relative to the fixture is consistent, the calibration measurement of the reference connector is correlated to the orientation of the fixture.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues fourth that Chivers is incompatible with Schmidt, so cannot be properly used to modify Schmidt, however, this argument is moot. The present action uses Chivers to modify Koudelka instead.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Applicant argues that Schmidt in view of Chivers does not teach certain claim elements, however, these arguments are moot. Koudelka is relied on to teach the elements specifically challenged in these arguments.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that the claim is not obvious over Schmidt in view of Chivers for similar reasons as claim 5, however, this argument is partially moot and partially unpersuasive for the reasons given above in response to argument regarding claim 5, such as the reliance on Koudelka instead of Schmidt in the present action.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues that Koudelka fails to cure the deficiencies of Schmidt, however, this argument is moot. The present action uses Koudelka as a primary reference rather than as a cure to Schmidt.
Finally, as the independent claims are not found allowable, their dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koudelka (US Patent 7801407) in view of Chivers (US Patent 9014528).
Regarding claim 1, Koudelka teaches an optical fiber ferrule polishing holder (FIG. 4, polishing work holder 312), comprising:
a plate-shaped body (FIG. 4, polishing work holder 312 is shown as having a round shape in a horizontal plane and a relatively low thickness compared to its radius, a common configuration among plates) having a first broad planar face (FIG. 4, the top surface of polishing work holder 312) and an opposing second broad planar face (FIG. 5, bottom surface 350) spaced apart by a thickness (FIG. 4, the width of outer edge 354), and a continuous outer periphery (FIG. 4, outer edge 354 is an outer periphery to the plate) defining a single, uninterrupted body, the plate-shaped body (FIG. 5, note that polishing work holder 312 is a single, uninterrupted body) including a plurality of insertion apertures (FIG. 4, where optical specimens 322 are inserted, described in COL. 3, lines 3-6, as optical fiber connectors or fiber optic connector ferrules) extending through the plate-shaped body between the first and second opposing broad planar surfaces and located inward of the continuous outer periphery (compare FIG. 4, showing the top surface of polishing work holder 312 with FIG. 5, showing the bottom surface 350. Optical specimens 322 are shown in both due to being inserted through the polishing work holder 312. Also note the positions where optical specimens 322 are disposed—inward of outer edge 354);
each insertion aperture being configured to removably hold a fiber optic ferrule for polishing (COL. 3, lines 3-6, describe the optical specimens 322 as optical fiber connectors or fiber optic connector ferrules. COL. 4, lines 38-40 say that optical specimens can be removed from the polishing work holder 212, which lines 59-60 say polishing work holder 312 is similar to. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that polishing work holders are used while the workpiece is being worked on, not permanently attached to the workpiece); and
wherein at least two of the plurality of insertion apertures have a permanent and different XY aperture tilt relative to a Z-axis that is normal to the reference surface (FIG. 4, note that the optical specimens 322 are tilted towards central work holder axis 320, which is a different XY tilt for each optical specimen 322. Also see COL. 3, lines 20-22).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach a reference surface disposed on the body in a location to be imaged by an optical imaging device to determine an XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to an optical axis of the imaging device.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach a reference surface (FIG. 4, end face 18 of the ferrule that is part of reference connector 50) disposed on the body (corresponding to fixture (or chuck) 32, shown in FIG. 3) in a location to be imaged by an optical imaging device (FIG. 1, interferometer 22, which corresponds to optical inspection system 310 of Koudelka) to determine an XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to an optical axis of the imaging device (COL. 2, lines 1-9 point out angle as one of the critical endface geometry parameters to measure). By measuring a reference surface with an interferometer, Chivers is able to ensure proper calibration of the measurement system so that the fibers under test are measured correctly (COL. 2, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of Koudelka by including at least one reference surface like that of Chivers among the plurality of optical specimens 322 (see FIG. 4 of Koudelka) to ensure that the critical geometry parameters, including angle, are properly measured.
Regarding claim 3, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of claim 1 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach a reference ferrule attached to the body and having a reference ferrule endface disposed in a recess formed in the bottom, and wherein the reference ferrule endface provides the reference surface.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach a reference ferrule attached to the body (COL. 7, lines 7-13 describe the ferrule) and having a reference ferrule endface (FIG. 4, endface 18) and, wherein the reference ferrule endface provides the reference surface (COL. 5, lines 25-26). By using a reference ferrule, Chivers is able to ensure proper calibration of the measurement system so that the fibers under test are measured correctly (COL. 2, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to use a reference ferrule endface as the reference surface, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
While Koudelka and Chivers do not explicitly teach that the reference ferrule endface is disposed in a recess formed in the bottom, Koudelka does explain that, in the process of polishing endfaces, the ferrules to be polished protrude slightly past the bottom surface of the polishing plate and an abrasive pad removes material from the protruding portion (COL. 1, lines 28-43). Meanwhile, Chivers warns against the delicate polished endface coming into contact with other parts of the device, including dowel pins designed such that the delicate endface is recessed relative to the dowel pins to protect the endface (COL. 7, lines 14-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to protect the delicate reference surface from having material removed while the optical specimens are being polished by recessing the reference surface relative to the parts around it, such as the bottom of the polishing work holder, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of claim 1 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach an RFID tag disposed on the body.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach an RFID tag disposed on the body (FIG. 2, chuck tag 46 and FIG. 4, reference connector tag 60). By including RFID tags on the chuck and reference connector, Chivers is able to store information regarding those tools in a way that is physically associated with the tools (COL. 5, lines 46-52 and COL. 5, line 67-COL. 6, line 8) which can be read during a single measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by including an RFID tag on the replaceable polishing work holder to store information on that polishing work holder with the polishing work holder, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Koudelka teaches an optical fiber system comprising:
a plate-shaped body (FIG. 4, polishing work holder 312 is shown as having a round shape in a horizontal plane and a relatively low thickness compared to its radius, a common configuration among plates) having a first broad planar face (FIG. 4, the top surface of polishing work holder 312) and an opposing second broad planar face (FIG. 5, bottom surface 350) spaced apart by a thickness (FIG. 4, the width of outer edge 354), and a continuous outer periphery (FIG. 4, outer edge 354 is an outer periphery to the plate) defining a single, uninterrupted body (FIG. 5, note that polishing work holder 312 is a single, uninterrupted body), the plate-shaped body including a plurality of insertion apertures (FIG. 4, where optical specimens 322 are inserted, described in COL. 3, lines 3-6, as optical fiber connectors or fiber optic connector ferrules) extending through the plate-shaped body between the first and second opposing broad planar surfaces and located inward of the continuous outer periphery (compare FIG. 4, showing the top surface of polishing work holder 312 with FIG. 5, showing the bottom surface 350. Optical specimens 322 are shown in both due to being inserted through the polishing work holder 312. Also note the positions where optical specimens 322 are disposed—inward of outer edge 354); each insertion aperture being configured to removably hold a fiber optic ferrule for polishing (COL. 3, lines 3-6, describe the optical specimens 322 as optical fiber connectors or fiber optic connector ferrules. COL. 4, lines 38-40 say that optical specimens can be removed from the polishing work holder 212, which lines 59-60 say polishing work holder 312 is similar to. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that polishing work holders are used while the workpiece is being worked on, not permanently attached to the workpiece); and wherein at least two of the plurality of insertion apertures have a permanent and different XY aperture tilt relative to a Z-axis that is normal to the reference surface (FIG. 4, note that the optical specimens 322 are tilted towards central work holder axis 320, which is a different XY tilt for each optical specimen 322. Also see COL. 3, lines 20-22).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach a reference surface disposed on the body in a location to be imaged by an optical imaging device to determine an XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to an optical axis of the imaging device;
a database storing spatial data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder, the spatial data including XY reference tilt data of the reference surface and XY aperture tilt data of at least one of the plurality of apertures, the XY reference tilt data includes the XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to a first Z-axis extending through the bottom, and the XY aperture tilt data includes the XY tilt of the associated aperture in relation to a second Z-axis extending perpendicular to the reference surface; and
whereby the spatial data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder can be retrieved for measuring at least one endface of a fiber optic ferrule held by the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach a reference surface (FIG. 4, end face 18 of the ferrule that is part of reference connector 50) disposed on the body (corresponding to fixture (or chuck) 32, shown in FIG. 3) in a location to be imaged by an optical imaging device (FIG. 1, interferometer 22, which corresponds to optical inspection system 310 of Koudelka) to determine an XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to an optical axis of the imaging device (COL. 2, lines 1-9 point out angle as one of the critical endface geometry parameters to measure);
storing spatial data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder (FIG. 2, chuck tag 46 and FIG. 4, reference connector tag 60), the spatial data including XY reference tilt data of the reference surface and XY aperture tilt data of at least one of the plurality of apertures, the XY reference tilt data includes the XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to a first Z-axis extending through the bottom, and the XY aperture tilt data includes the XY tilt of the associated aperture in relation to a second Z-axis extending perpendicular to the reference surface (COL. 5, lines 46-52 and COL. 5, line 67-COL. 6, line 8); and
whereby the spatial data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder can be retrieved for measuring at least one endface of a fiber optic ferrule held by the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder (FIG. 1, RFID reader 28).
By measuring a reference surface with an interferometer, Chivers is able to ensure proper calibration of the measurement system so that the fibers under test are measured correctly (COL. 2, lines 13-16). By including RFID tags on the chuck and reference connector, Chivers is able to store information regarding those tools in a way that is physically associated with the tools (COL. 5, lines 46-52 and COL. 5, line 67-COL. 6, line 8) which can be read during a single measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka by including at least one reference surface like that of Chivers among the plurality of optical specimens 322 (see FIG. 4 of Koudelka) to ensure that the critical geometry parameters, including angle, are properly measured and by including an RFID tag on the replaceable polishing work holder to store information on that polishing work holder with the polishing work holder, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
While Chivers does not explicitly teach that the data is held in a database, instead storing the data in each RFID tag, Chivers does teach that the information includes a serial number. A serial number denotes the identity of a particular part, which could be used to uniquely look up the other information associated with that part from a database containing such information. By doing this, the information the RFID tag needs to store can be reduced, potentially allowing a simpler design to be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by offloading some of the information stored on the RFID chip of Chivers into a database to be queried using the serial number of the holder found in the RFID tag in order to achieve the predictable result of requiring less data storage on each holder.
Regarding claim 7, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 5 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach a reference ferrule attached to the body and having a reference ferrule endface disposed in a recess formed in the bottom, and wherein the reference ferrule endface provides the reference surface.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach a reference ferrule attached to the body (COL. 7, lines 7-13 describe the ferrule) and having a reference ferrule endface (FIG. 4, endface 18) and, wherein the reference ferrule endface provides the reference surface (COL. 5, lines 25-26). By using a reference ferrule, Chivers is able to ensure proper calibration of the measurement system so that the fibers under test are measured correctly (COL. 2, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to use a reference ferrule endface as the reference surface, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
While Koudelka and Chivers do not explicitly teach that the reference ferrule endface is disposed in a recess formed in the bottom, Koudelka does explain that, in the process of polishing endfaces, the ferrules to be polished protrude slightly past the bottom surface of the polishing plate and an abrasive pad removes material from the protruding portion (COL. 1, lines 28-43). Meanwhile, Chivers warns against the delicate polished endface coming into contact with other parts of the device, including dowel pins designed such that the delicate endface is recessed relative to the dowel pins to protect the endface (COL. 7, lines 14-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to protect the delicate reference surface from having material removed while the optical specimens are being polished by recessing the reference surface relative to the parts around it, such as the bottom of the polishing work holder, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 5 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach an identifier disposed on the body and wherein the identifier is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach an identifier disposed on the body (FIG. 2, chuck tag 46 and FIG. 4, reference connector tag 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to use the RFID tag of Chivers in order to store the serial number of Chivers and potentially other information on the device.
While Chivers does not explicitly teach that the identifier is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database, Chivers does teach that the RFID tag does include serial number information, which would be useful for identifying a particular part to look it up in a database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by using an RFID tag containing the serial number of the part, in the manner of Chivers, and by using that serial number to look up the part in the database to get its characterization data.
Regarding claim 9, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 5 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach an RFID tag disposed on the body, and wherein the RFID tag is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach an RFID tag disposed on the body (FIG. 2, chuck tag 46 and FIG. 4, reference connector tag 60). By including RFID tags on the chuck and reference connector, Chivers is able to store identity information regarding those tools in a way that is physically associated with the tools (COL. 5, lines 46-52 and COL. 5, line 67-COL. 6, line 8) which can be read during a single measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to use the RFID tag of Chivers in order to store the serial number of Chivers and potentially other information on the device.
While Chivers does not explicitly teach that the identifier is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database, Chivers does teach that the RFID tag does include serial number information, which would be useful for identifying a particular part to look it up in a database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by using an RFID tag containing the serial number of the part, in the manner of Chivers, and by using that serial number to look up the part in the database to get its characterization data.
Regarding claim 10, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 5 (as described above).
Koudelka further teaches an interferometer having an optical axis, the interferometer being disposed relative to the body such that the optical axis intersects the bottom (COL. 2, lines 15-29).
Regarding claim 11, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 5 (as described above).
While neither Koudelka nor Chivers feels the need to clarify that the database is a computer database, the term “database”, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, typically refers to a computer database in particular (see Merriam-Webster (Non-Patent Literature “Database”), page 2, section titled definition of database, which places the sole listed definition in the context of computers and references computers again within the body of the definition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the typical kind of database, a computer database, when designing the database of the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, avoiding the need to come up with a non-computer database.
Regarding claim 12, Koudelka teaches an optical fiber system comprising:
a plate-shaped body (FIG. 4, polishing work holder 312 is shown as having a round shape in a horizontal plane and a relatively low thickness compared to its radius, a common configuration among plates) having a first broad planar face (FIG. 4, the top surface of polishing work holder 312) and an opposing second broad planar face (FIG. 5, bottom surface 350) spaced apart by a thickness (FIG. 4, the width of outer edge 354), and a continuous outer periphery (FIG. 4, outer edge 354 is an outer periphery to the plate) defining a single, uninterrupted body (FIG. 5, note that polishing work holder 312 is a single, uninterrupted body), the plate-shaped body including a plurality of insertion apertures (FIG. 4, where optical specimens 322 are inserted, described in COL. 3, lines 3-6, as optical fiber connectors or fiber optic connector ferrules) extending through the plate-shaped body between the first and second opposing broad planar surfaces and located inward of the continuous outer periphery (compare FIG. 4, showing the top surface of polishing work holder 312 with FIG. 5, showing the bottom surface 350. Optical specimens 322 are shown in both due to being inserted through the polishing work holder 312. Also note the positions where optical specimens 322 are disposed—inward of outer edge 354); each insertion aperture being configured to removably hold a fiber optic ferrule for polishing (COL. 3, lines 3-6, describe the optical specimens 322 as optical fiber connectors or fiber optic connector ferrules. COL. 4, lines 38-40 say that optical specimens can be removed from the polishing work holder 212, which lines 59-60 say polishing work holder 312 is similar to. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that polishing work holders are used while the workpiece is being worked on, not permanently attached to the workpiece); and wherein at least two of the plurality of insertion apertures have a permanent and different XY aperture tilt relative to a Z-axis that is normal to the reference surface (FIG. 4, note that the optical specimens 322 are tilted towards central work holder axis 320, which is a different XY tilt for each optical specimen 322. Also see COL. 3, lines 20-22);
a fixture (FIG. 4, interface 316), the fixture configured to removably hold the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder (COL. 4, lines 63-65), the fixture having a Z-axis that extends through the bottom of the body when the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder is held by the fixture (FIG. 4, central work holder axis 320); and
an optical imaging device (FIG. 4, optical inspection device 314) mounted to the fixture for movement relative to the plate-shaped body when the plate-shaped body is held by the fixture (FIG. 4, rotation is about hub feature 340), and the optical imaging device having an optical axis that intersects the bottom of the body when the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder is held by the fixture (FIG. 4, optical axis 318).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach a reference surface disposed on the body in a location to be imaged by an optical imaging device to determine an XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to an optical axis of the imaging device.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach a reference surface (FIG. 4, end face 18 of the ferrule that is part of reference connector 50) disposed on the body (corresponding to fixture (or chuck) 32, shown in FIG. 3) in a location to be imaged by an optical imaging device (FIG. 1, interferometer 22, which corresponds to optical inspection system 310 of Koudelka) to determine an XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to an optical axis of the imaging device (COL. 2, lines 1-9 point out angle as one of the critical endface geometry parameters to measure). By measuring a reference surface with an interferometer, Chivers is able to ensure proper calibration of the measurement system so that the fibers under test are measured correctly (COL. 2, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka by including at least one reference surface like that of Chivers among the plurality of optical specimens 322 (see FIG. 4 of Koudelka) to ensure that the critical geometry parameters, including angle, are properly measured, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 12 (as described above).
While the embodiment in FIG. 4 of Koudelka features an optical inspection system 310 fixed in place and a rotatable work holder, a different embodiment of Koudelka does teach that further teaches that the optical imaging device is mounted for rotation about the Z-axis (FIG. 1, rotatable optical inspection device 114, which is mounted to interface 116 in such a way as to rotate about work holder central axis 120, as indicated by arrow 119). By rotating the optical inspection device, Koudelka is able to select what part of the polishing work holder 112 is in front of the interferometer in a way that is similar to the other embodiment taught by Koudelka, with predictably similar results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to rotate the optical inspection device rather than the polishing work holder as taught by Koudelka, achieving the predictable result of adjusting which optical specimen is under test at a particular moment.
Regarding claim 14, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 12 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach a database storing characterization data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder, the characterization data including XY reference tilt data of the reference surface and XY aperture tilt data of at least one of the plurality of apertures, the XY reference tilt data includes the XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to a first Z-axis extend through the bottom, and the XY aperture tilt data includes the XY tilt of the associated aperture in relation to a second Z-axis extending perpendicular to the reference surface; and
whereby the characterization data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder can be retrieved for measuring at least one endface of a fiber optic ferrule held by the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach storing characterization data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder (FIG. 2, chuck tag 46 and FIG. 4, reference connector tag 60), the characterization data including XY reference tilt data of the reference surface and XY aperture tilt data of at least one of the plurality of apertures, the XY reference tilt data includes the XY tilt of the reference surface in relation to a first Z-axis extend through the bottom, and the XY aperture tilt data includes the XY tilt of the associated aperture in relation to a second Z-axis extending perpendicular to the reference surface (COL. 5, lines 46-52 and COL. 5, line 67-COL. 6, line 8); and
whereby the characterization data of the at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder can be retrieved for measuring at least one endface of a fiber optic ferrule held by the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder (FIG. 1, RFID reader 28). By including RFID tags on the chuck and reference connector, Chivers is able to store information regarding those tools in a way that is physically associated with the tools (COL. 5, lines 46-52 and COL. 5, line 67-COL. 6, line 8) which can be read during a single measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by including at least one reference surface like that of Chivers among the plurality of optical specimens 322 (see FIG. 4 of Koudelka) to ensure that the critical geometry parameters, including angle, are properly measured and by including an RFID tag on the replaceable polishing work holder to store information on that polishing work holder with the polishing work holder, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
While Chivers does not explicitly teach that the data is held in a database, instead storing the data in each RFID tag, Chivers does teach that the information includes a serial number. A serial number denotes the identity of a particular part, which could be used to uniquely look up the other information associated with that part from a database containing such information. By doing this, the information the RFID tag needs to store can be reduced, potentially allowing a simpler design to be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by offloading some of the information stored on the RFID chip of Chivers into a database to be queried using the serial number of the holder found in the RFID tag in order to achieve the predictable result of requiring less data storage on each holder.
Regarding claim 15, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 14 (as described above).
While neither Koudelka nor Chivers feels the need to clarify that the database is a computer database, the term “database”, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, typically refers to a computer database in particular (see Merriam-Webster (Non-Patent Literature “Database”), page 2, section titled definition of database, which places the sole listed definition in the context of computers and references computers again within the body of the definition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the typical kind of database, a computer database, when designing the database of the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, avoiding the need to come up with a non-computer database.
Regarding claim 16, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 14 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach that at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder further has an RFID tag disposed on the body, and wherein the RFID tag is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach that at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder further has an RFID tag disposed on the body (FIG. 2, chuck tag 46 and FIG. 4, reference connector tag 60). By including RFID tags on the chuck and reference connector, Chivers is able to store identity information regarding those tools in a way that is physically associated with the tools (COL. 5, lines 46-52 and COL. 5, line 67-COL. 6, line 8) which can be read during a single measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to use the RFID tag of Chivers in order to store the serial number of Chivers and potentially other information on the device.
While Chivers does not explicitly teach that the identifier is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database, Chivers does teach that the RFID tag does include serial number information, which would be useful for identifying a particular part to look it up in a database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by using an RFID tag containing the serial number of the part, in the manner of Chivers, and by using that serial number to look up the part in the database to get its characterization data.
Regarding claim 17, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 14 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach that at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder further has an identifier disposed on the body and wherein the identifier is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach that at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder further has an identifier disposed on the body (FIG. 2, chuck tag 46 and FIG. 4, reference connector tag 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to use the RFID tag of Chivers in order to store the serial number of Chivers and potentially other information on the device.
While Chivers does not explicitly teach that the identifier is used to retrieve the characterization data from the database, Chivers does teach that the RFID tag does include serial number information, which would be useful for identifying a particular part to look it up in a database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, by using an RFID tag containing the serial number of the part, in the manner of Chivers, and by using that serial number to look up the part in the database to get its characterization data.
Regarding claim 19, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 12 (as described above).
Koudelka does not explicitly teach that at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder further has a reference ferrule attached to the body and having a reference ferrule endface disposed in a recess formed in the bottom, and wherein the reference ferrule endface provides the reference surface.
In the same field of endeavor of calibrating optical fiber inspection devices, Chivers does teach that at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder further has a reference ferrule attached to the body (COL. 7, lines 7-13 describe the ferrule) and having a reference ferrule endface (FIG. 4, endface 18), and wherein the reference ferrule endface provides the reference surface (COL. 5, lines 25-26). By using a reference ferrule, Chivers is able to ensure proper calibration of the measurement system so that the fibers under test are measured correctly (COL. 2, lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to use a reference ferrule endface as the reference surface, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
While Koudelka and Chivers do not explicitly teach that the reference ferrule endface is disposed in a recess formed in the bottom, Koudelka does explain that, in the process of polishing endfaces, the ferrules to be polished protrude slightly past the bottom surface of the polishing plate and an abrasive pad removes material from the protruding portion (COL. 1, lines 28-43). Meanwhile, Chivers warns against the delicate polished endface coming into contact with other parts of the device, including dowel pins designed such that the delicate endface is recessed relative to the dowel pins to protect the endface (COL. 7, lines 14-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, to protect the delicate reference surface from having material removed while the optical specimens are being polished by recessing the reference surface relative to the parts around it, such as the bottom of the polishing work holder, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 12 (as described above).
Koudelka further teaches that the optical imaging device is an interferometer (COL. 2, lines 16-19).
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koudelka (US Patent 7801407) in view of Chivers (US Patent 9014528) in view of Paschotta (Non-Patent Literature “Michelson Interferometers”).
Regarding claim 2, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of claim 1 (as described above).
While Koudelka does teach that the optical imaging components are based on a Michelson Interferometer arrangement (COL. 5, lines 50-53), Koudelka does not explicitly teach that the reference surface is a mirrored surface.
In the same field of endeavor of optical interferometry, Paschotta does teach Michelson interferometers for which each surface is a mirrored surface (section Interferometer Setup and Operation Principle, which shows and describes several setups with mirrors along both the reference and sample arms of the interferometers). By mirroring both surfaces, Paschotta is able to increase the amount of light available to create interference fringes on the detector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, with the mirrored interferometry target of Paschotta to increase the amount of light available to produce interference fringes, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 5 (as described above).
While Koudelka does teach that the optical imaging components are based on a Michelson Interferometer arrangement (COL. 5, lines 50-53), Koudelka does not explicitly teach that the reference surface is a mirrored surface.
In the same field of endeavor of optical interferometry, Paschotta does teach Michelson interferometers for which each surface is a mirrored surface (section Interferometer Setup and Operation Principle, which shows and describes several setups with mirrors along both the reference and sample arms of the interferometers). By mirroring both surfaces, Paschotta is able to increase the amount of light available to create interference fringes on the detector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber system of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, with the mirrored interferometry target of Paschotta to increase the amount of light available to produce interference fringes, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, teaches or renders obvious the optical fiber system of claim 12 (as described above).
While Koudelka does teach that the optical imaging components are based on a Michelson Interferometer arrangement (COL. 5, lines 50-53), Koudelka does not explicitly teach that the reference surface of at least one optical fiber ferrule polishing holder is a mirrored surface.
In the same field of endeavor of optical interferometry, Paschotta does teach Michelson interferometers for which each surface is a mirrored surface (section Interferometer Setup and Operation Principle, which shows and describes several setups with mirrors along both the reference and sample arms of the interferometers). By mirroring both surfaces, Paschotta is able to increase the amount of light available to create interference fringes on the detector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical fiber ferrule polishing holder of Koudelka, as modified by Chivers, with the mirrored interferometry target of Paschotta to increase the amount of light available to produce interference fringes, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877