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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, a comma should apparently be added immediately after the phrase “or a track” in line 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: light scattering detection system in claim 1, image processing system in claim 1, and cleaning system in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, a light scattering detection system is interpreted to include a light and a sensor, or equivalents thereof; an image processing system is interpreted to include a camera, or equivalents thereof; and a cleaning system is interpreted to include an air blower, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the rack mechanism is configured to couple the inspection and cleaning tool to a rack, and position the inspection and cleaning tool to align with an optical cable interconnect” in lines 4-5 renders the claim indefinite because the recited rack and optical cable interconnect are not positively claimed and it is not clear whether or not they are required structural features of the claimed apparatus. It appears the intended meaning may be that they are not required structural features, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “wherein the rack mechanism is configured to reposition the inspection and cleaning tool to align with a second optical cable interconnect” renders the claim indefinite because the recited second optical cable interconnect is not positively claimed and it is not clear whether or not it is a required structural feature of the claimed apparatus. It appears the intended meaning may be that it is not a required structural feature, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “wherein the rack mechanism controls the position of the inspection and cleaning tool based on visual recognition software” renders the claim indefinite because the recited software is not positively claimed and it is not clear whether or not it is a required structural feature of the claimed apparatus. It appears the intended meaning may be that it is not a required structural feature, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “wherein the rack mechanism is configured to reposition the inspection and cleaning tool to align with a second optical cable interconnect” renders the claim indefinite because the recited second optical cable interconnect is not positively claimed and it is not clear whether or not it is a required structural feature of the claimed apparatus. It appears the intended meaning may be that it is not a required structural feature, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,482,594 to Leigh et al. (“Leigh”) in view of US 2022/0338699 to Wu et al. (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 1, Leigh teaches an apparatus useful for inspecting and cleaning optical interconnects, comprising: a rack mechanism comprising one or more of a motor, a drive belt, or a track (Fig. 2, ref. 216 and 218, col. 4, line 50 – col. 5, line 13, motor); and an inspection and cleaning tool, wherein: the rack mechanism is configured to be useful to couple the inspection and cleaning tool to a rack, and position the inspection and cleaning tool to align with an optical cable interconnect (col. 1, lines 5-12), the rack mechanism is mountable to the rack (note Fig. 2), the rack mechanism is configured to be useful to move the inspection and cleaning tool across a width of the rack and across a height of the rack (note Fig. 2); and the inspection and cleaning tool includes an image processing system (Fig. 2, ref. 220, col. 3, lines 31-60, first camera (not shown) and second camera), and a cleaning system (Fig. 2, ref. 204, col. 3, lines 19-30, col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 9), wherein the image processing system is useful to determine whether a surface of the optical cable interconnect is clean and the cleaning system is configured to be useful to clean the optical cable interconnect based on a determination that the surface of the optical cable interconnect is not clean.
Leigh does not explicitly teach that the inspection and cleaning tool includes a light scattering detection system useful to determine whether a surface of the optical cable interconnect is clean. Wu teaches a cleaning apparatus Wu including a light scattering detection system (para [0065], [0124]), which is disclosed as advantageously enhancing positioning and location control (para [0063] – [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Leigh apparatus in view of Wu wherein the inspection and cleaning tool includes a light scattering detection system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance positioning and location control. Since the Leigh/Wu apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 3, Leigh/Wu disclose an apparatus wherein the image processing system includes a camera (Leigh, Fig. 2, ref. 220, col. 3, lines 31-60, first camera (not shown) and second camera).
Regarding claim 4, Leigh/Wu disclose an apparatus wherein the light scattering detection system includes a light and a sensor (Wu, para [0065], [0124]).
Regarding claim 5, Leigh/Wu disclose an apparatus wherein the cleaning system includes an air blower (Leigh, Fig. 2, ref. 204, col. 3, lines 19-30, col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 9, note ref. 208).
Regarding claim 6, Leigh/Wu do not explicitly teach the apparatus being operated in a manner wherein cleaning the optical cable interconnect includes blowing air on the optical cable interconnect via the air blower of the cleaning system. However, since the Leigh/Wu apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 7, Leigh/Wu do not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein the rack mechanism is configured to be useful to reposition the inspection and cleaning tool to align with a second optical cable interconnect. However, since the Leigh/Wu apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 8, Leigh/Wu do not explicitly teach the apparatus being operated in a manner wherein the determination that the optical cable interconnect is not clean is based on determining that measurements from the light scattering detection system and the image processing system differ from a known baseline by a threshold amount. However, since the Leigh/Wu apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 16, Leigh teaches a system useful for inspecting and cleaning optical interconnects, the system comprising: a rack including one or more systems, wherein at least one of the one or more systems includes an optical cable and an associated optical cable interconnect (col. 1, lines 5-12, 32-45); and an inspection and cleaning system comprising: a rack mechanism (Fig. 2, ref. 216 and 218, col. 4, line 50 – col. 5, line 13) and an inspection and cleaning tool, wherein the rack mechanism is configured to be useful to couple the inspection and cleaning tool to the rack, and position the inspection and cleaning tool to align with the optical cable interconnect (col. 1, lines 5-12), wherein the rack mechanism comprises one or more of a motor, a drive belt, or a track (Fig. 2, ref. 216 and 218, col. 4, line 50 – col. 5, line 13, motor), wherein the rack mechanism is mounted to the rack (note Fig. 2), the rack mechanism is configured to move the inspection and cleaning tool across a width of the rack and across a height of the rack (note Fig. 2); and the inspection and cleaning tool includes an image processing system (Fig. 2, ref. 220, col. 3, lines 31-60, first camera (not shown) and second camera), and a cleaning system (Fig. 2, ref. 204, col. 3, lines 19-30, col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 9), wherein the image processing system is useful to determine whether a surface of the optical cable interconnect is clean and the cleaning system is configured to clean the optical cable interconnect based on a determination that the surface of the optical cable interconnect is not clean.
Leigh does not explicitly teach that the inspection and cleaning tool includes a light scattering detection system useful to determine whether a surface of the optical cable interconnect is clean. Wu teaches a cleaning apparatus Wu including a light scattering detection system (para [0065], [0124]), which is disclosed as advantageously enhancing positioning and location control (para [0063] – [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Leigh apparatus in view of Wu wherein the inspection and cleaning tool includes a light scattering detection system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance positioning and location control. Since the Leigh/Wu apparatus includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 17, Leigh/Wu disclose a system wherein the inspection and cleaning system is mounted to a back side of the rack (Leigh, Fig. 2). Note that the rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 18, Leigh/Wu disclose do not explicitly teach the system being operated in a manner wherein the rack mechanism controls the position of the inspection and cleaning tool based on visual recognition software. However, the Leigh/Wu apparatus includes the claimed structural features and appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited (see, e.g., Leigh, col. 3, lines 31-60).
Regarding claim 19, Leigh/Wu do not explicitly teach the system wherein the rack mechanism is configured to be useful to reposition the inspection and cleaning tool to align with a second optical cable interconnect. However, since the Leigh/Wu system includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 20, Leigh/Wu disclose do not explicitly teach the system being operated in a manner wherein the determination that the surface of the optical cable interconnect is not clean is based on determining that measurements from the light scattering detection system and the image processing system differ from a known baseline by a threshold amount. However, since the Leigh/Wu system includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,482,594 to Leigh et al. (“Leigh”) in view of US 2022/0338699 to Wu et al. (“Wu”) and in further view of US 2020/0142136 to Yamada et al. (“Yamada”).
Regarding claim 2, Leigh/Wu do not explicitly teach the apparatus a hook configured to control a position of an optical cable associated with the optical cable interconnect. Cable hooks were known in the art as effective for enhancing the attaching and securing cables (see, e.g., Yamada at, inter alia, Fig. 17, ref. 139, para [0206], [0209]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Leigh/Wu apparatus as was known wherein it includes a hook configured to be useful to control a position of an optical cable associated with the optical cable interconnect, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they were known as effective for attaching and securing cables.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that the claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) should be withdrawn in view of the present amendments and structure recited in claims 2-5 (remarks, page 7, para beginning “Without acquiescing in the comments”), it is initially noted that the relevant recitations are light scattering detection system in claim 1, image processing system in claim 1, and cleaning system in claim 1. Accordingly, any structural features in claims 2-5, which depend from claim 1, do not mean that claim 1 recites sufficient structure. Further, it is not clear how the present amendments involve the recitations that have been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Regarding applicant’s assertion that the present amendment cure the indefiniteness issues (remarks, page 7, para beginning “Without acquiescing in the allegation”), it is not clear how the present amendments address the issues.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that the applied art does not teach or suggest the claim 1 features that the rack mechanism is mounted to the rack, and that the rack mechanism is configured to move the inspection cleaning tool across a width of the track and across a height of the track (remarks, page 8, para beginning “LEIGH and WU”), it is initially noted that claim 1 does not positively claim the recited rack and is not interpreted as requiring the recited rack. Further, the Leigh/Wu rack mechanism appears to be fully capable of being mounted to a rack (note Leigh, Fig. 2) and appears to be fully capable of being operated to move the inspection and cleaning tool across a width of the rack and across a height of the rack (note Leigh, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714