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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Each of the Amendment filed 14 October 2025 and the Supplemental Amendment filed 22 October 2025 has been entered. The Supplemental Amendment filed 22 October 2025 is limited to correction of informalities, and is therefore entered consistent with MPEP 714.03(a). Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are pending, of which claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration as explained in the Election/Restrictions section below. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 14 July 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claims 10-11 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 10 requires that the controller determines the minimum non-slip gripping force based on whether a predetermined time has passed or the gripper moving actuator has been driven by a predetermined amount. The manner of determining the minimum non-slip gripping force in claim 10 is a different special technical feature from that recited in the claims as originally examined. Claims 6 and 7 as filed 20 November 2023 recite determining the minimum non-slip gripping force due to slippage or non-slippage of the optical fiber in the first gripper without respect to time or the gripper moving actuator being drive by a predetermined amount. Thus, claim 10 recites a different special technical feature with respect to how the minimum non-slip gripping force is determined compared to the claims as originally examined. The shared technical features between claim 10 and claim 1 as originally filed do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of EP 3 018 511 A1 to Fujikura Ltd. (See the rejection of claim1 in the Non-Final Office action mailed 14 July 2025.)
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 13 recites, “a predetermined tension”. This recitation is describing the tension applied by the tension applier (which is previously introduced at line 6, and which is referred to as “the tension” at line 8), and therefore this recitation should make clear that a new tension is not being introduced. To resolve this issue, the examiner suggests amending lines 13-14 to read: – in a state in which the tension is applied to the optical fiber is a predetermined value –.
Claim 12 at line 11 recites, “a predetermined tension”. This recitation is describing the tension applied by the tension applier (which is previously introduced at line 6, and which is referred to as “the tension” at line 8), and therefore this recitation should make clear that a new tension is not being introduced. To resolve this issue, the examiner suggests amending lines 11-12 to read: – in a state in which the tension is applied to the optical fiber is a predetermined value –.
Claim 12 at line 24 recites, “a gripper moving actuator which applies a tension”. This tension is the same tension previously introduced at line 6, and thus line 24 should read: – a gripping moving actuator which applies the [[a]] tension –.
Claim 12 at lines 26-27 recites, “the gripping force applier comprises a pressing force applying actuator which enables to change a first gripping force of the pair of grippers”. The phrasing “which enables to change” is grammatically improper. The examiner suggests reciting – the gripping force applier comprises a pressing force applying actuator , the pressing force applying actuator to change a first gripping force of the pair of grippers –. Note that this suggestion does not resolve issues under 35 USC 112 discussed below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 12-13 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.
Initially, all citations to paragraph numbers of the present application are with respect to the published US version of the present application (US Pub. No. 2024/0253260 A1).
Claim 1 at lines 18-19 recites, “the blade forms the scratch and cuts the optical fiber by applying tension to the optical fiber”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification. For example, it is unclear whether the claim requires that the blade applies tension to the optical fiber, or whether the claim permits another structure (such as the first and second grippers, or the tension applier) to apply the tension. As another example, it is unclear whether a “tension” that is additional to the tension already introduced at line 6 is required by the recitation. On the one hand, the plain language of this recitation requires that the blade applies tension to the optical fiber. Since the originally introduced “tension” of line 6 is not applied by the blade, the tension of lines 18-19 is arguably required to be a newly introduced tension. Furthermore, the lack of “the” as an article for “tension” in the recitation at lines 18-19 further suggests that a new tension is being introduced, rather than the recitation referring to the tension previously introduced at line 6 of the claim. As such, there is reason to favor interpreting the recitation as requiring that the blade applies an additional tension (relative to the tension already introduced at line 6 of the claim) in order to cut the optical fiber. On the other hand, as disclosed in the present specification, the blade is not explicitly described as applying tension on the optical fiber. For example, paragraph 32 of the present application states, “When the blade 7 is applied to the glass portion f1 in a state in which the first gripper 10 and the second gripper 20 apply a predetermined tension to the optical fiber F, the optical fiber F is cut.” This passage makes clear that the grippers apply the tension to the optical fiber, and the blade merely creates a scratch in the fiber that results in the fiber being cut (in conjunction with the tension applied by the grippers). Paragraph 66 also mentions cutting the optical fiber F with the blade 7 “by applying tension to the optical fiber F”. However, in this passage, it is not clear that the blade 7 is the structure that is required to apply tension to the optical fiber F. Instead, a reading of paragraph 66 suggests that the controller 8 causes the optical fiber F to be cut by the blade 7 while the controller 8 causes tension to be applied to the optical fiber F (such as by the controller 8 controlling the pair of grippers 10 and 20). Thus, the present specification suggests that the blade is not required to apply tension to the optical fiber because the present specification does not expressly contemplate the blade applying tension, and instead the present specification does contemplate the grippers applying tension to the optical fiber. The present specification therefore suggests that the recitation of “tension” at line 19 should be interpreted as being the same tension already introduced at line 6. Finally, the examiner notes that the blade as disclosed in the present application contacts the optical fiber from a side of the fiber (see Fig. 1 of the present drawings), and thus produces a bending moment in the fiber. A bending moment applied to a middle portion of the fiber does result in both a tension and a compression being exerted on the fiber. However, the present application does not expressly contemplate this tension, such that it is arguably not the tension referred to at lines 18-19. In summary, since it is unclear whether claim 1 at lines 18-19 requires the blade to apply an additional tension to the optical fiber, or whether claim 1 at lines 18-19 merely requires the blade to scratch the optical fiber such that the scratch in conjunction with the tension applied by the tension applier cuts the fiber, claim 1 is indefinite. If the Applicant does not intend the blade to apply tension to the optical fiber, the examiner suggests amending lines 18-19 to read: – the blade forms the scratch and the cutting device cuts the optical fiber by applying the tension to the optical fiber –.
Claim 1 at lines 20-21 recites, “the controller causes the first gripper to be separated from the second gripper in the longitudinal direction by reducing the first gripping force”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the controller must implicitly perform some additional, non-recited action in order to cause the first gripper to be separated from the second gripper. The recitation merely requires that ‘reducing the gripper force’ causes the first gripper to be separated from the second gripper. However, as disclosed in the present specification, merely reducing the first gripping force is insufficient to cause the first gripper to be separated from the second gripper. Instead, in order to achieve separation of the first gripper from the second gripper by reducing the first gripping force, the controller as disclosed also control the tension applier to separate the first gripper from the second gripper. That is, merely reducing the first gripping force, in and of itself, does not cause separation of the grippers, without the controller also actuating the tension applier. However, the recitation at lines 20-21 makes no requirements with respect to the tension applier. As such, lines 20-21 are indefinite because it is unclear whether the controller must take some additional action to separate the grippers beyond merely reducing the first gripping force. The examine below provides a recommendation for overcoming this rejection.
Claim 1 at line 23 recites, “the first gripping force”. This recitation is indefinite because the claim previously implicitly introduces a plurality of first gripping forces, and it is unclear which particular gripping force is referred to in line 23. The claim at line 21 recites, “reducing the first gripping force”. In order to reduce the first gripping force, there must be multiple gripping forces of various magnitudes. Thus, line 21 implicitly introduces a plurality value for the first gripping force. However, line 23 only refers to “the first gripping force”. It is unclear whether “the first gripping force” at line 23 can be any of the values of the first gripping force of line 21, or whether “the first gripping force” at line 23 must be some particular one of the values of the first gripping force. To overcome this issue, along with the issue raised in the preceding paragraph, the examiner suggests amending lines 20-23 of claim 1 as follows:
the controller determines the minimum non-slip gripping force by:
controlling the tension applier to apply the tension to the optical fiber and controlling the first gripping force applier to apply the first gripping force to the first gripper,
while the tension is applied to the optical fiber, the controller reduces a value of the first gripping force until slippage between the first gripper and the optical fiber occurs, and
in response to the slippage between the first gripper and the optical fiber, the controller determines the minimum non-slip gripping force to be the value of the first gripping force when the slippage occurs.
Claim 12 at line 10 recites that the controller “controls the gripping force for the pair of grippers”. This recitation is indefinite in view of lines 4-5 reciting, “a gripping force applier disposed in one or both of the pair of gripers and that generates and changes a gripping force”. Claim 12 at lines 4-5 define “a gripping force” as a force generated and changed by a gripping force applier. However, claim 12 at line 10 appears to require that there must be two gripping force appliers, since the controller is required to control the gripping force “for the pair of grippers”. If there is only one gripping force applier, as appears to be permitted at line 4, it is unclear how the controller can control the gripping force each both grippers. Thus, claim 12 at line 10 appears to require that each of the pair of grippers has a respective gripping force applier. Put another way, if there is only one gripping force applier, then the controller would only be able to control the gripping force for one of the pair of grippers. Either claim 12 at line 10 should be read as requiring that the controller controls the gripping force for one of the pair of grippers, or claim 12 at line 4 should be read as requiring a pair of gripping force appliers respectively disposed in the pair of grippers. However, it is unclear how there can be one gripping force applied disposed in one of the pair of grippers, while the controller is still able to control the gripping force for the pair of grippers. This inconsistency results in claim 12 being indefinite because the required remedy is unclear.
Claim 12 at lines 22-23 recites, “the blade forms the scratch and cuts the optical fiber by applying tension to the optical fiber”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 at lines 18-19.
Claim 12 at lines 26-27 recites, “the gripping force applier comprises a pressing force applying actuator which enables to change a first gripping force of the pair of grippers”. This recitation is indefinite for multiple reasons. For one, as explained above with respect to lines 4-5, the claim appears to encompass there being only a single gripping force applier. If there is only one gripping force applier, it is unclear how the gripping force applier can change the gripping force “of the pair of grippers” as required by lines 26-27. Should lines 26-27 be interpreted as requiring that the gripping force is changed for one of the pair of grippers? Or, should lines 26-27 be interpreted as eliminating the option at lines 4-5 for the gripping force applier to be in only one of the grippers? As another reason why this recitation is indefinite, it is unclear whether a new “first gripping force” is being introduced, or whether the “first gripping force” of lines 26-27 is the same as the “gripping force” of line 5. In view of the present specification, it appears that the forces are one and the same. However, if this is the case, why is the same force twice introduced with different names?
Claim 12 recites multiple recitation that are indefinite due to uncertainty regarding whether double inclusion is intended. Claim 12 at line 29 recites, “a direction” in which the first gripper is moved away from the second gripper, yet claim 12 at lines 6-7 recites a longitudinal direction in which the pair of grippers are separated from each other. Claim 12 at line 30 recites, “a first gripping force”, yet a first gripping force is previously introduced at line 27. Claim 12 at lines 32-33 recites, “a first gripper”, yet a first gripper is previously introduced at line 29. Claim 12 at lines 36-37 recites, “a pressing force applying actuator”, yet claim 12 at line 26 previously introduces a pressing force applying actuator. Claim 12 at line 37 recites, “a gripper moving actuator”, yet claim 12 at line 24 previously introduces a grippier moving actuator. For each of the above quoted features, the relationship between the first and second introduce feature having the same name is unclear. Is double inclusion required for each of these recitations (e.g., are two first grippers required)? Or, should each of these recitations be interpreted as referring to the same feature as initially introduced? If the Applicant does not intend double inclusion, why does the claim recite “a” instead of “the” for each feature that is previously introduced?
Claim 12 at line 33 recites, “gradually increases”. The term “gradually” in this recitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rate of increase encompassed by “gradually increases” is unclear. Does “gradually” require that the force is increased more slowly than in other, conventional optical fiber cutting devices? What comparison should be made with respect to the rate of force increase to determine whether the increase is “gradual” or not?
Claim 12 at line 38 recites, “this time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for any such time, rendering claim 12 indefinite. Is “this time” limited to some particular time previously introduced in the claim? If so, which time? (Note that no ‘time’ is previously introduced.) As best understood, “this time” appears to be a time at which, while the controller moves the first gripper away from the second gripper, and while the controller gradually increases a value of the first gripping force from a slipping value at which slippage of the optical fiber relative to the first gripper occurs, the slippage of the optical fiber relative to the first gripper ceases such that the tension increases to reach the predetermined value. However, if this interpretation is intended, the claim should explicitly introduce such a time, rather than merely reciting “this time”.
Claim 13 includes multiple recitations that are indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion is intended. Claim 13 at line 3 recites, “a tension” applied by a gripper moving actuator, yet claim 1 already introduces tension applied by a tension actuator at line 6. Claim 13 at line 10 recites, “a direction” in which the first gripper is moved away from the second gripper, yet claim 1 already introduces a longitudinal direction in which the first gripper is separated from the second gripper at lines 6-7. Claim 13 at line 11 recites, “a pair of grippers”, yet claim 1 already introduces first and second grippers at line 2. Claim 13 at lines 17-18 recites, “a pressing force applying actuator”, yet claim 13 at line 5 previously introduces a first pressing force applying actuator. Claim 13 at line 18 recites, “a gripping moving actuator”, yet claim 13 at line 3 previously introduces a gripping moving actuator. For each of the above quoted features, the relationship between the first and second introduce feature having the same (or similar) name is unclear. Is double inclusion required for each of these recitations (e.g., are two pressing force applying actuators required)? Or, should each of these recitations be interpreted as referring to the same feature as initially introduced? If the Applicant does not intend double inclusion, why does the claim recite “a” instead of “the” for each feature that is previously introduced?
Claim 13 at line 14 recites, “gradually increase”. The term “gradually” in this recitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rate of increase encompassed by “gradually increase” is unclear. Does “gradually” require that the forces are increased more slowly than in other, conventional optical fiber cutting devices? What comparison should be made with respect to the rate of force increase to determine whether the increases are “gradual” or not?
Claim 13 at line 19 recites, “this time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for any such time, rendering claim 13 indefinite. The same discussion provided above with respect to claim 12 reciting “this time” is applicable to claim 13.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-4 and 12-13 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103. However, no determination of allowability can be made in view of the issues raised above under 35 USC 112. Claim 1 requires that the optical fiber cutting device uses the same first and second grippers to grip the optical fiber during a cutting operation (see lines 17-19) as are used to determine a minimum non-slip gripping force, where “the controller causes the first gripper to be separated from the second gripper in the longitudinal direction by reducing the first gripping force, and in response to slippage between the first gripper and the optical fiber, the controller determines the minimum non-slip gripping force to be the first gripping force.” EP 3 018 511 A1 to Fujikura Ltd. determines a set gripping force by looking up a particular selection instruction in a control amount data (see paragraph 185), rather than determining the set gripping force via separating the first and second grippers during a reduction of the first gripping force and determining the minimum non-slip gripping force in response to slippage. Moreover, while US Pat. No. 5,791,539 to Shill et al. teaches determining a gripping force experimentally, mere disclosure of experimentally determining the non-slip gripping force is insufficient to disclose the manner of determination set forth in claim 1, where the first and second grippers are used for both holding the optical fiber during cutting and determining the minimum non-slip gripping force and where the minimum non-slip gripping force is determined in response to slippage between the first gripper and the first optical fiber. Thus, claim 1 distinguishes over Fujikura, even as modified by Shill.
Claim 12 also distinguishes over Fujikura, even as modified by Shill. Claim 12 requires that the controller “drives the pressing force actuator so that a first gripping force of a first gripper of the pair of grippers gradually increases, the controller determines whether the tension of the optical fiber measured by the tension measuring sensor has reached a predetermined value, … and the controller stores the first gripping force at this time [see the discussion in the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section above related to “this time”] as the minimum non-slip gripping force in the storage”. Fujikura, even as modified by Shill, does not disclose this feature.
Moreover, this section serves as a Response to Arguments section.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724