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 .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 2011/0091167 (“NISHIMURA”) in view of US 2007/0196057 (“SUZUKI”).
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.
Regarding claim 1, NISHIMURA teaches an optical structure (21) capable of increasing return loss, comprising a light transmission body (26) and a plurality of juxtaposed optical fibers (4), wherein, a plurality of juxtaposed insertion holes (11) are disposed on the light transmission body, the plurality of optical fibers are inserted into the insertion holes one to one (par. [0088]), a reflection surface (25a) aligned with end surfaces of the optical fibers is disposed inside the light transmission body, an avoiding opening (26b) for accommodating an optical communication chip (2) is disposed at a front bottom of the light transmission body, a plurality of focusing lenses (28) in one-to-one correspondence with the optical fibers are disposed on a top wall of the avoiding opening, the focusing lenses are located below the reflection surface (FIG. 11), an optical signal emitted from the front end of the optical fibers is firstly reflected by the reflection surface and then passed through the focusing lenses into the optical communication chip (par. [0075]).
NISHIMURA does not teach an inclined end surface inclined at a preset angle relative to a vertical surface is formed at a front end of the optical fibers. SUZUKI teaches that an inclined end surface inclined at a preset angle relative to a vertical surface is formed at a front end of an optical fiber (par. [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the structure of NISHIMURA with the inclined end surface of SUZUKI. The motivation would have been to reduce reflection loss (par. [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, NISHIMURA teaches that the focusing lenses are non-spherical focusing lenses (FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 5, NISHIMURA teaches a glue dispensing opening (8) is disposed at a rear end of the light transmission body, a plurality of optical fibers run through the glue dispensing opening (FIG. 9), and a fixing glue is filled in the glue dispensing opening (par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, NISHIMURA teaches that the light transmission body is a plastic body (par. [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, NISHIMURA teaches method of manufacturing the optical structure, comprising the following steps: at step S1, prefabricating a light transmission body (26) and preparing a plurality of optical fibers (4), wherein a plurality of juxtaposed insertion holes (11) are disposed on the light transmission body, a reflection surface (25a) is disposed in the light transmission body, an avoiding opening (26b) is disposed at a front bottom of the light transmission body, a plurality of focusing lenses (28) are disposed on a top wall of the avoiding opening; at step S2, inserting the plurality of optical fibers into the insertion holes one to one (par. [0088]), and the end surfaces of the optical fibers are aligned with the reflection surface (par. [0051]); at step S3, covering the avoiding opening above an optical communication chip (2); at step S4, when an optical signal is emitted from a front end of the optical fibers, reflecting the optical signal by the reflection surface and then transmitting the optical signal through the focusing lenses to the optical communication chip (par. [0075]).
NISHIMURA does not teach an inclined end surface is disposed at a front end of the optical fibers, wherein the inclined end surfaces are inclined at a preset angle relative to a vertical surface. SUZUKI teaches that an inclined end surface inclined at a preset angle relative to a vertical surface is formed at a front end of an optical fiber (par. [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of NISHIMURA with the inclined end surface of SUZUKI. The motivation would have been to reduce reflection loss (par. [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, NISHIMURA teaches that a glue dispensing opening (8) is disposed at a rear end of the light transmission body, and the method further comprises a glue dispensing step: filling a fixing glue in the glue dispensing opening such that a plurality of optical fibers (4) are fixed by the fixing glue in the glue dispensing opening (par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, NISHIMURA teaches that in the step S1, the light transmission body is formed by processing a plastic material (par. [0035]), and the focusing lenses are non-spherical focusing lenses (FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 13, NISHIMURA teaches that the focusing lenses are non-spherical focusing lenses (FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 14, NISHIMURA teaches that a glue dispensing opening (8) is disposed at a rear end of the light transmission body, a plurality of optical fibers (4) run through the glue dispensing opening, and a fixing glue is filled in the glue dispensing opening
(par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, NISHIMURA teaches that the light transmission body is a plastic body (par. [0035]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12, NISHIMURA in view of SUZUKI renders obvious the limitations of the respective base claims. The additional limitations appear to involve mere optimization of the inclination angle. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the inclination angle of NISAHIMURA in view of SUZUKI, as set forth in the instant claims. The motivation would have been to further reduce reflection loss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874