The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 13, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 2020/0064531 A1) in view of Owen (US 4,795,354).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda discloses (e.g., Figs. 1 – 6; Abstract; para. 0021 – 0039) an optical fiber coupling device 10 comprising:
a main coupling structure (main tubular member comprising 11) comprising:
an axial channel extending through the main coupling structure, and
a coupling mechanism 11 for coupling an optical fiber connector 8,9 thereto such that, when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism 11 (“ A cover member 8 which covers an optical fiber 9 in the circumferential direction is attached to the tip of the optical fiber 9. The cover member 8 is connected to the inlet 11 of the first connection member 10 by, for example, snap-fitting” at para. 0022), light from the optical fiber connector 8,9 can be transmitted through the axial channel;
a fixation structure 13 (flange) for attaching the optical fiber coupling device 10 to an optical module 20,29 (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0028),
wherein the axial channel extends from a first (right) axial end to a second (left) axial end (in the orientation of Figs. 1 – 5), and
wherein the fixation structure 13 is configured for attaching the optical fiber coupling device 10 to the optical module 20,29 (using fasteners 15; para. 0026) such that the second (left) axial end overlaps an input window 29 of the optical module 20,29 (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0025).
Matsuda recognizes the problem of contamination ingress into the optical module 20,29 and mitigates it by using a protection mechanism comprising a deformable diaphragm 68 (para. 0035 – 0039) that can be closed when the optical fiber connector 8,9 and/or the main coupling structure 10 is disconnected/unplugged. Matsuda does not teach that the protection mechanism can further comprise a deformable element configured for adaptively deforming to receive therethrough the optical fiber connector 8,9 when the latter is inserted into the main coupling structure (as shown in Fig. 3A). However, Owen discloses (Figs. 1 and 3; Abstract; 2:3 – 50) a protection mechanism 10 (dust cover) comprising a deformable element 36 configured for adaptively deforming to receive therethrough a connector 42, when the connector 42 is inserted into, and coupled to, a coupling mechanism (top portion of 12 in the orientation of Fig. 3), such that the deformable element 36 adapts to a shape of the connector 42 via form-fitting and surrounds the connector 42 and covers a portion of a cross-section of an axial channel around the connector 42 (as seen in Fig. 3); wherein the coupling mechanism is arranged at a first (top)axial end, wherein the deformable element 36 covers the portion of the cross-section of the axial channel around the connector 42 in a region of the axial channel axially arranged between the coupling mechanism and the second (bottom) axial end.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contamination protection in Matsuda can further comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Owen, a deformable element (dust cover) configured for adaptively deforming to receive therethrough the optical fiber connector 8,9, when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism 11, such that the deformable element adapts to a shape of the optical fiber connector 8,9 via form-fitting and surrounds the optical fiber connector 8,9 and covers a portion of a cross-section of the axial channel around the optical fiber connector 8,9. The motivation for such a deformable element is that it can prevent dust ingress into the interior spacer of the main coupling structure when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is unplugged and pulled out of the axial channel. Furthermore, the deformable element comprises a layer (38 in Fig. 3 of Owen) that wipes a front end of the optical fiber connector 8,9, as it being inserted into the interior spacer of the main coupling structure, removes any contamination on the end (“The sealing gasket 36, in a specific, preferred form, includes a first flexible material 38 which can be a woven monofiliment synthetic fiber such as, e.g., nylon. This material 38 contains a slit 40 and the material 38 is preferably woven in such a way that the cut fiber ends, which terminate at the slit 40, are oriented upwarded to provide the actual contact surface for wiping a printed circuit board card 42. The exposed fiber ends provide a brush-like action to wipe dust and other contaminants off the card 42 as it is inserted into the connector 26” at 2:23 – 32 of Owen), and thereby prevents contamination from reaching the interior spacer of the main coupling structure and the optical module (after/if the diaphragm 68 is opened for operation).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The optical fiber coupling device of the Matsuda – Owen combination is illustrated in Figure A which is produced from Fig. 1B of Matsuda by adding, in accordance with the teachings of Owen, a deformable element that prevents dust ingress into the interior spacer of the main coupling structure and into the optical module.
Figure A. The optical fiber coupling device of the Matsuda – Owen combination.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Matsuda – Owen combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
As an aside and relevant comment for the claims, it is also noted that the optical fiber coupling device of the Matsuda – Owen combination has essential structural features (an adaptor/receptable/holder for an optical fiber connector with an interior deformable element disposed at an end receiving the optical fiber connector) and a principle of operation (protection of the interior space of from contamination and cleaning of the inserted end of the optical fiber connector) that are substantially similar/identical to those of the claimed optical fiber coupling device, as evident from a direct side-by-side comparison of Figure A with Figs. 4 and 6 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Matsuda and Owe combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 1. Specifically, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers an optical fiber coupling device comprising (see Figure A provided above for claim 1):
a main coupling structure comprising:
an axial channel extending through the main coupling structure, and
a coupling mechanism (comprising 11) for coupling an optical fiber connector 8,9 thereto such that, when the optical fiber connector 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism, light from the optical fiber connector 8,9 can be transmitted through the axial channel (and passed to the optical module 20); and
a protection mechanism comprising a deformable element (according to the teachings of Owen) configured for deforming to receive therethrough the optical fiber connector 8,9, when the optical fiber connector is coupled to the coupling mechanism, such that the deformable element surrounds the optical fiber connector 8,9 and covers a portion of a cross-section of the axial channel around the optical fiber connector 8,9, wherein the deformable element is configured for trapping therein contaminating particles liberated by friction between the optical fiber connector 8,9 and the coupling mechanism when coupling the optical fiber connector with the coupling mechanism (as detailed above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, the teachings of Matsuda and Owe combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 1. Specifically, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers a laser input device for coupling a laser transmission device 8,9 (transmitting laser light; para. 0002, 0003, 0025, and 0029 of Matsuda) to an optical module 20 such that laser light transmitted by the laser transmission device 8,9 is fed into the optical module 20, wherein the laser input device comprises (see Figure A provided above for claim 1):
a housing defining an axial channel therethrough from a first (right) axial end to a second (left) axial end,
a coupling mechanism (comprising 11) for coupling a laser transmission device 8,9 thereto such that, when the laser transmission device 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism, light from the laser transmission device can be fed to the optical module 20 through the axial channel; and
a deformable protection element (according to the teachings of Owen) configured for receiving therethrough the laser transmission device 8,9 when the laser transmission device 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism form-fitting to the laser transmission device and filling a cross-section of the axial channel around the laser transmission device.
Regarding claim 3, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the protection mechanism is arranged within the main coupling structure, preferably completely arranged therein.
Regarding claim 4, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the protection mechanism is attached to an interior wall of the axial channel.
Regarding claim 5, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element is substantially planar (in its undeformed state, as shown in Fig. 1 of Owen) and has a shape matching a cross-section of the axial channel (according to Fig. 1 of Owen) so that to completely cover it.
Regarding claim 6, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element extends substantially perpendicular to the axial channel (according to Fig. 1 of Owen) so that to completely cover it.
Regarding claim 7, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element comprises one or more deformable holes or one or more deformable slits 46 (as identified in Fig. 1 of Owen) configured for deforming for receiving therethrough the optical fiber connector coupled to the coupling mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the protection mechanism comprises one or more biasing elements (corresponding to rigid layer 48 in Fig. 1 of Owen; “The gasket 36 is completed with a third, relatively rigid material 48, such as a suitable plastic” at 2:41 – 42) configured for providing a restoring force to the deformable element, wherein the restoring force keeps the deformable element in a non-deformed state when no optical fiber connector is coupled to the coupling mechanism (compare Figs 1 and 3 of Owen; Fig. 1 shows that the biasing element 48 is configured for providing a restoring force to the deformable element 36, wherein the restoring force keeps the deformable element 36 in a non-deformed state when no connector 42 is coupled to the coupling mechanism).
Regarding claim 10, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1; Fig. 1A of Matsuda) that the main coupling structure is formed of several part and comprises a first structure body (shaped as a cylinder/pipe) and a second structure body (shaped as a cover/lid with an aperture) attached to each other, wherein the protection mechanism is arranged or arrangeable between the first structure body and the second structure body. Forming the first structure body and the second structure body removably attached or integrally attached would be well with ordinary skill in the art. Applicant is reminded that making parts integral or separate is within the ordinary skill in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, B and C).
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that housings of fiber-optic connector holders/receptables with removably attached parts/portions are well known in the art. Such removably connected housing would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art and have an advantage of allowing disassembly, e.g., for a repair, cleaning, or repair.
Regarding claim 12, 13, and 20, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers that the deformable element comprises or is made of a porous fibrous material, such as synthetic (e.g., nylon) fibers which provide a wiping/cleaning action and remove contamination from an inserted end of the optical fiber connector (2:23 – 32 of Owen).
Regarding claim 18, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable protection element is arranged between the coupling mechanism and the second (left) axial end.
Regarding claim 19, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable protection element is bendable for receiving therethrough the laser transmission device 8,9 when the laser transmission device 8,9 is coupled to the coupling mechanism (as detailed above for claim 1).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA)
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Matsuda considers that the optical fiber connector can be used for high-power laser applications, such as for a laser machining head (para. 0025). While Matsuda does not cite standard types/formats of optical fiber connectors for high-power laser applications, AAPA cites such type as a QBH coupling standard (para. 0003). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the coupling mechanism in Matsuda can be configured to be compliant with the QBH coupling standard to accommodate a standard optical fiber connector for high-power laser applications.
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that both cited coupling standards are well known in the art of high-power laser applications and connectors. Either format would be an obvious choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to ensure compatibility with standard connectors.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, and further in view of Larkin (US 4,411,491).
Regarding claim 9, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers (see Figure A provided above for claim 1) that the deformable element comprises one or more layers 38,44 of material arranged on top of each other (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 of Owen; 2:23 – 50). While the Matsuda – Owen combination considers does not teach rotated layers, Larkin discloses (Fig. 7 and 22) a deformable element that comprises two layers 44’,70 of material arranged on top of each other, wherein at least one layer of the one or more layers of material is rotated around the axial channel with respect to another one of the layers of the one or more layers of material.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the layers 38,44 of material arranged on top of each other, as considered by the Matsuda – Owen combination, can be rotated relative to each other in order to misalign their slits (as shown for slits 56, and 72 in Fig. 7 of Larkin) and thereby improve the tightness of the fit/closure.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Owen, and further in view of Mahajan (US 2009/0281226 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the Matsuda – Owen combination considers that the deformable element comprises or is made of a porous fibrous material, such as synthetic (e.g., nylon) fibers which provide a wiping/cleaning action and remove contamination from an inserted end of the optical fiber connector (2:23 – 32 of Owen). Selection of other suitable/materials, such as polyester fibers, would be well within ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Mahajan discloses (Abstract; para. 0085, 0086, 0107, and 0108) polyester fibers for use as diaphragms and in fiber-optic applications, the fibers being thermally stable at temperatures of 70°C or more (Figs. 6 and 7). It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,109,989 Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5
US 10,830,953 B2 Fig. 3A
US 2017/0365973 A1 Figs. 1 – 3
US 2011/0008006 A1 Figs. 5 – 8
US 6,176,739 B1 Figs. 19 – 21
US 5,466,164 Figs. 18 and 19
WO 2021/0260010 A1 Figs. 1 – 3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896