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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 5, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Eleven (11) sheets of drawings were filed on February 28, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Inventorship
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.
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 1-4 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler et al. (US 2021/0048586 A1), hereafter Altshuler, in view of Gapontsev et al. (US 8,724,945 B2), hereafter Gapontsev; Brown (US 2005/0196108 A1); Heckmann et al. (US 4,904,035), hereafter Heckmann; and Liao et al. (CN 209167595 U), hereafter Liao.
Regarding claim 1-3; Altshuler discloses a fiber connector bulkhead adapter (328; see Figures 5A and 5B) for coupling a fiber connector (224) to bulkhead optics so as to inhibit back reflections from damaging a laser system, the adapter (328) comprising:
a bore (279) sized to receive a fiber ferrule (227) of a fiber connector (224),
the fiber ferrule (227) for holding an optical fiber (280; Figure 5B),
the optical fiber (280) having an end face of the fiber ferrule (227), and
the end face having at least a portion that confronts an end of the bore (229);
a mounting base (328) with a coupling element (242);
in which the shroud (coupling element) is formed from a depressed region in the mounting base (328).
Does not disclose that the optical fiber comprises a core and a cladding, or that the mounting base defines a shroud and an aperture between the end of the bore and the shroud, the aperture having a diameter that is sized such that it does not occlude a beam diameter of a beam emitted from the core when the core is positioned at its maximum central alignment tolerance, and it shrouds areas of the fiber ferrule beyond the cladding.
The examiner takes Official notice that optical fibers conventionally include a core surrounded by a cladding, wherein the boundary of the core and cladding form a TIR (total internal reflection) interface such that light is guided within the core by reflection at the boundary.
Provision of a shroud with an aperture having a diameter that is sized such that it does not occlude a beam diameter of a beam emitted from the core when the core is positioned at its maximum central alignment tolerance, and it shrouds areas of the fiber ferrule beyond the cladding for the purpose of preventing back-reflected and/or scattered light from interfering with optical coupling and transmission is known as evidenced by prior art. Gapontsev (US 8,724,945 B2) discloses the use of a frusto-conical quartz block (114; see Figure 2) to with reflective surfaces (and a transparent aperture couple light to/from a fiber core (111), the fiber including a core (111) and a cladding (113), wherein the frusto-conical block forms a conical reflector. Brown (US 2005/0196108 A1) teaches that a shroud (70/72; see Figure 8) may be provided to prevent reflected light from coupling into the core (66) of an optical fiber having both a core (66) and a cladding (62). Heckmann (US 4,904,035) teaches that a ferrule (1) may be shielded from a coupling region by a shroud (6) having a conical aperture which forms a conical reflector (7; see the Figure). And Liao (CN 109375322 A) teaches that a mounting base of an adapter (see Figures 1 and 2) may include a shroud (2) with a conical surface (22), which forms a conical reflector, and aperture (23) to reduce reflections and interference (see the corresponding machine translation).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an optical fiber that comprises a core and cladding, since this is a standard structure of optical fibers, and to replace the coupling element (242) of Altshuler with a shroud, the shroud including a conical reflector, to provide the mounting base with a shroud and an aperture between the end of the bore and the shroud, the aperture having a diameter that is sized such that it does not occlude a beam diameter of a beam emitted from the core when the core is positioned at its maximum central alignment tolerance, and it shrouds areas of the fiber ferrule beyond the cladding for the purpose of preventing black-reflected and/or scatter light from interfering with optical transmission and coupling.
Regarding claim 4; Gapontsev teaches that the frusto-conical quartz reflector formed by the block (114; see Figure 2) has oblique-angled sidewalls that avoids corner-cube reflectance (see Figure 2); Heckmann teaches that the conical reflector (7; see the Figure) include oblique-angled sidewalls (see the Figure); and Liao teaches that a conical surface (22), which forms a conical reflector, has oblique-angled sidewalls to avoid corner-cube reflectance. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the conical reflector (see the rejection of claims 1-3 above) in which the conical reflector has oblique-angled sidewalls that avoids corner-cube reflectance for the purpose of preventing back-reflected and scattered light from interfering with transmission.
Regarding claims 10 and 11; Altshuler further teaches that the mounting base may include a flange (see Figure 3), but fails to disclose that the flange acts as a heat sink for transferring heat to a bulk optics housing, wherein the heat sink is copper. The examiner takes Official notice that it’s known in the art to form components of metal for the purpose of providing a heat sink to transfer heat, including copper metal. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the flange made of copper for the purpose of providing a flange to allow for secure attachment to a desired housing or enclosure and enabling the attachment to act a heat sink to dissipate heat and prevent the adapter, connector, and fiber therein from being damaged or deformed due to excess heat, since no novel or unexpected advantages would appear to occur from this known way of dissipating heat.
Regarding claim 12; before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any desired optical fiber in the fiber connector bulkhead adapter of claim 1, including a TFL optical fiber, since this is a known type of fiber and it appears the invention would perform equally well regardless of the particular fiber employed.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the optical fiber itself does not actually form a part of the adapter being claimed, and therefore the limitations of claim 12 appear to be directed to an intended use of the adapter, specifically the adapter being used to couple a particular type of fiber, a TFL fiber. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Regarding claim 13; the applied references suggest a method of reducing heat build-up in a laser system as applied to the claims above, the method comprising: mounting the fiber connector bulkhead adapter of claim 1 to a housing of an FFC; and coupling the fiber connector to the fiber connector bulkhead adapter (see the figures of Altshuler, wherein the connector is within the adapter and the adapter is mounted to a housing).
Regarding claims 14 and 15; directing a fan toward the housing and the fiber connector bulkhead adapter, and/or actuating a liquid cooling system to cool the housing and the fiber connector bulkhead adapter are known conventional methods for cooling optical devices and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use either or both of these methods to appropriately cool the adapter, connector and optical fiber arrangement suggested by the prior art for the purpose of preventing damage to the arrangement due to the presence of excess heat, since no novel or unexpected results would appear to occur from the use of a fan and/or cooling liquid to provide cooling to any desired optical device.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler (US 2021/0048586 A1) in view of Gapontsev (US 8,724,945 B2); Brown (US 2005/0196108 A1); Heckmann (US 4,904,035); and Liao (CN 209167595 U), and in further view of Rinzler et al. (US 2013/0011102 A1), hereafter Rinzler.
Regarding claims 5-7; Altshuler, Gapontsev, Brown, Heckmann, and Liao teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1-3 as applied above, but fail to teach that the conical reflector includes a surface treatment to reduce absorbed power, including gold plating, or a surface texture to diffuse reflected light. Rinzler teaches that back reflections may be managed by applying an inner surfaces with a coated material to absorb the back reflected light and/or to have surfaces that will defuse back-reflected light (see paragraph 141), and that reflective gold coatings may be applied to inner surfaces (see paragraphs 147, 207, and 228) to manage back reflections. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a surface treatment to the conical reflector to reduce absorbed power, including gold plating, or a surface texture to diffuse reflected light for the purpose of using known materials to control back reflections in a desired manner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler (US 2021/0048586 A1) in view of Gapontsev (US 8,724,945 B2); Brown (US 2005/0196108 A1); Heckmann (US 4,904,035); and Liao (CN 209167595 U), and in further view of Logunov et al. (US 2023/0168436 A1), hereafter Logunov.
Regarding claim 8; Altshuler, Gapontsev, Brown, Heckmann, and Liao teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1-3 as applied above, but fail to teach a fiber end face angle to avoid core coupled end face reflections. The examiner takes Official notice that it’s commonly known that the end face of optical fibers may be provided an angle from a perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fiber for the purpose of minimizing back reflections and increasing optical coupling efficiency into or out of the fiber end face, as evidenced by paragraph 75 of Logunov. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a fiber end face angle to avoid core coupled end face reflections for the purpose of increasing optical coupling efficiency with a known technique that would not provide any novel or unexpected results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler (US 2021/0048586 A1) in view of Gapontsev (US 8,724,945 B2); Brown (US 2005/0196108 A1); Heckmann (US 4,904,035); and Liao (CN 209167595 U), and Logunov (US 2023/0168436 A1) and in further view of Alexeev et al. (US 2004/0114873 A1), hereafter Alexeev.
Regarding claim 9; Altshuler, Gapontsev, Brown, Heckmann, Liao, and Logunov teach or suggest the limitations of claim 8 as applied above, but fail to disclose an adapter angle to set the emission perpendicular to the mounting base. Alexeev teaches that an adapter angle to set the emission perpendicular to the mounting base may be applied to an adapter arrangement (see Figure 10 and paragraph 89) for the purpose of providing a fine alignment process to compensate for lateral shift and defocus. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an adapter angle to set the emission perpendicular to the mounting base for the purpose of providing find alignment process to compensate for lateral shift and defocus to optimize optical coupling in a known manner that would not provide and novel or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 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, 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874