FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment and remarks received January 15, 2026. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are amended. Claims 7 and 8 are newly added. No claims are canceled. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 and 7, filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tamura. Specifically, Tamura is silent to a clear teaching of the limitations newly added to independent claims 1 and 6, however, this difference is found to be obvious as detailed hereinafter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (US Patent 6,939,060, hereinafter referred to as “Tamura”).
With respect to claim 1, Tamura discloses:
A fusion splicer (see figure 3A and 3B, see title and abstract) for fusion-splicing a plurality of optical fibers (1a,1b, see figures 3A and 3B), arranged side by side along a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction (see figures 3A and 3B), with respective other optical fibers (see figures 3A and 3B, a plurality of fibers are shown, side by side), comprising:
a base member (see figure 3A, heating board 13 at the top of the figure as seen in the orientation in figure 3A is interpreted as the base member) with a groove portion (the v-grooves 14 in the top heating board 13 are interpreted as the groove portion) having a plurality of V-grooves (14) formed therein for setting the plurality of optical fibers (see figure 3B which shows the plurality of optical fibers in the v-grooves of the top heating board 13 after setting the fibers therein); and
a pair of guide walls (see figures 3A and 3B, the walls of the v-grooves 14 of the bottom heating board 13 are interpreted as the guide walls, the pair here referenced is interpreted as the leftmost surface of the leftmost v-groove 14 and the rightmost surface of the rightmost v-groove 14) configured to guide setting of the plurality of optical fibers into the plurality of V-grooves (see figure 3B), wherein the guide walls are disposed at an interval in a width direction of the groove portion, one of the guide walls constituting the pair has a guide surface capable of coming into contact with one of the plurality of optical fibers, another one of the guide walls constituting the pair has a guide surface capable of coming into contact with another one of the plurality of optical fibers (see figures 3A and 3B), and each guide surface includes a portion inclined toward the groove portion when viewed along a direction of extension of the plurality of V-grooves (see figures 3A and 3B, all the guides surfaces and guide walls are inclined toward the groove portion).
Tamura is silent to the thicknesses of the guide walls along the longitudinal direction of the plurality of optical fibers are each less than or equal to half of an overall length of the plurality of V- grooves. However, Tamura does appear to show that this is the case, the examiner’s interpretation being shown in the annotated figure 3A just below, though the examiner notes that the drawings are not disclosed to be to scale.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the structure of Tamura such that the thicknesses of the guide walls along the longitudinal direction of the plurality of optical fibers are each less than or equal to half of an overall length of the plurality of V- grooves, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to form the structure of Tamura with such a ratio of length of V-grooves to the thickness along that length, because having a longer V-groove results in more supported length of optical fiber inside the V-groove, creating a more stable situation for splicing the optical fibers.
Tamura further discloses claims:
2. The fusion splicer as claimed in claim 1, wherein each guide surface is disposed as a continuous extension of a groove surface of one of the plurality of V-grooves when viewed along the direction of extension of the plurality of V-grooves (see figure 3B the guide surfaces are interpreted as being disposed as continuous extensions of a groove surface of the V-grooves).
3. The fusion splicer as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pair of guide walls is formed as a member separate from the base member (see figure 3A).
4. The fusion splicer as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pair of guide walls is integrated with the base member (see figure 3B).
5. The fusion splicer as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the guide walls constituting the pair is configured to be movable relative to the groove portion in the width direction (see figures 3A and 3B).
With respect to claim 6, Tamura discloses:
An optical fiber splicing method of fusion-spicing (see figures 3A and 3B and title and abstract) a plurality of optical fibers (1a,1b) with respective other optical fibers by using a fusion-splicer that includes a base member (see figure 3A, heating board 13 at the top of the figure as seen in the orientation in figure 3A is interpreted as the base member) with a groove portion (the v-grooves 14 in the top heating board 13 are interpreted as the groove portion) having a plurality of V-grooves (14) formed therein for setting a plurality of optical fibers (see figure 3B which shows the plurality of optical fibers in the v-grooves of the top heating board 13 after setting the fibers therein), and a pair of guide walls (see figures 3A and 3B, the walls of the v-grooves 14 of the bottom heating board 13 are interpreted as the guide walls, the pair here referenced is interpreted as the leftmost surface of the leftmost v-groove 14 and the rightmost surface of the rightmost v-groove 14) configured to guide setting of the plurality of optical fibers into the plurality of V-grooves (see figure 3B), the optical fiber splicing method comprising:
placing the plurality of optical fibers in the plurality of V-grooves while bringing one of the plurality of optical fibers into contact with a guide surface of one of the guide walls constituting the pair (see figures 3A and 3B), the guide walls being disposed at an interval in a width direction of the groove portion (see figures 3A and 3B); and
fusion-splicing (via burner 6) the plurality of optical fibers with respective other optical fibers.
Tamura is silent to the thicknesses of the guide walls along the longitudinal direction of the plurality of optical fibers are each less than or equal to half of an overall length of the plurality of V- grooves. However, Tamura does appear to show that this is the case, the examiner’s interpretation being shown in the annotated figure 3A included above in the rejection of claim 1, though the examiner notes that the drawings are not disclosed to be to scale.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the structure of Tamura such that the thicknesses of the guide walls along the longitudinal direction of the plurality of optical fibers are each less than or equal to half of an overall length of the plurality of V- grooves, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to form the structure of Tamura with such a ratio of length of V-grooves to the thickness along that length, because having a longer V-groove results in more supported length of optical fiber inside the V-groove, creating a more stable situation for splicing the optical fibers.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Tamura discloses:
wherein the pair of guide walls is disposed at a position corresponding to a center of the base member in the longitudinal direction (see figure 3A, the pair of guide walls aren’t at the end and are therefore interpreted as being corresponding to a center of the base member).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gilles (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0166710) discloses a V-groove (channel dug 2) and having guide portion (3) for guiding optical fibers into the device (see figure 3).
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 JOHN M BEDTELYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1290. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John Bedtelyon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874