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 .
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.
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(s) 1-2, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 10151891) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Mentovich et al. (US 10088639; “Mentovich”) and/or Hung (US 8939657) and/or Jong et al. (US 20040126069; “Jong”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an active optical multi-fiber optical ferrule transceiver assembly (e.g., figs. 2-6; col. 3 line 60 to col. 4 line 11) comprising: a substrate portion 20 connected to an optical multi-fiber ferrule 50 portion (e.g., col. 3 line 62-67; figs. 1-2, 4-6); an optical engine 40/50 (e.g., figs. 2-5) coupled to the substrate 20 portion (e.g., figs. 2-5); and a plurality of optical fibers 60 of the optical multi-fiber {MF} ferrule 50 portion (e.g., col. 3 line 62-67; fig.5; see also fig. 4), wherein the optical engine 40/50 is connected to the plurality of optical fibers {OFs} 60 (e.g., col. 4 lines 1-11; fig. 5), and the plurality of optical fibers 60 are inserted and combined inside the optical engine 40/50 (e.g., figs. 4-5).
Lin does not explicitly state that the MF ferrule {MFF} 50 having plural OFs 60 extending therein comprises a cable having OFs extending from the cable. Moreover, Lin does not explicitly state the substrate 20 is a PCB.
First of all, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or use a PCB (printed circuit board) in place of the substrate 20 at least as evidenced by Mentovich (e.g., Mentovich col. 7 lines 58-61: “printed circuit board or substrate”). Thus using a PCB as the substrate 20 clearly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Moreover, Hung teaches plural optical fibers 30 secured in what is referred to as a “jumper” 20 attached to a turning mirror structure 12 (e.g., Hung figs 1-4) substantially similar to the optical engine 40/50 turning mirror structure in Lin’s fig. 5. Furthermore, Jong teaches that jumpers have connectors/ferrules attached to both ends of the optical fibers (e.g., Jong ¶ 0002). Importantly, Jong teaches a flexible multifiber jumper having connectors/ferrules at both end of the jumper 10’’ (e.g., Jong fig. 4; multifiber connectors 14” and 12” may be at opposite ends of jumper 10’ in Jong fig. 4 as taught at Jong ¶ 0024; moreover Jong ¶ 0024 teaches the plural fibers can be ribbonized with UV curing adhesive 25” or tape at ends 16” and 18” as shown in fig. 4; therefore, since the jumper taught by Jong fig. 4 has multiple fibers bound/ribbonized/connectorized at both ends the jumper of Jong fig. 4 is properly referred to as a jumper cable; another jumper cable is shown at Jong fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ferrule 50 in Lin fig. 5 to be one end of a jumper cable particularly since Lin teaches a transceiver which can use a plurality of fibers in the multifiber jumper cable to connect optical signals of the transceiver to another transceiver/location via the jumper cable.
Based on the above discussion, it clearly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ferrule/connector 50 in Lin fig. 5 to be one end of a jumper cable with a plurality of optical fibers extending from the fibers of the cable into the ferrule/connector at each end of the jumper cable.
Therefore, Lin with OEB Mentovich and/or Hung and/or Jong [herein may be referred to as “Lin-Mentovich-Hung-Jong” or even more simply as “Lin-M-H-J”] teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Lin-M-H-J teaches the active optical cable of claim 1 (see above), wherein the optical engine 40/50 is formed to cover an optical element 30 formed on the PCB 20 portion (e.g., Lin fig. 5).
Thus claim 2 is rejected.
Regarding claim 11, Lin-M-H-J teaches wherein the optical engine 40/50 comprises an optical fiber connector 50 connected to the plurality of optical fibers 60; and a main body 40 coupled to the optical fiber connector 50 (e.g., Lin fig. 5), a plurality of hole portions are formed in the optical fiber connector, the plurality of optical fibers pass through the plurality of hole portions and are connected to the optical fiber connector 50 (e.g., Lin col. 3 line 62-67; Lin fig.5; see also Lin fig. 4).
Thus claim 11 is rejected.
Regarding claim 12, Lin-M-H-J teaches the active optical cable of claim 11 (see above), wherein recessed portions 520 are formed in the optical fiber connector 50 (e.g., Lin fig. 2), protruding portions 423 are formed in the main body 40 (e.g., Lin fig. 3), and the protruding portions 423 are respectively inserted in and coupled to the recessed portions 520 (e.g., Lin fig. 4).
Thus claim 12 is rejected.
Regarding claim 13, Lin-M-H-J teaches the active optical cable of claim 12 (see above), wherein the protruding portions 423 are disposed on both sides of the plurality of holes (e.g., Lin col. 3 line 62-67; Lin fig.5; see also Lin fig. 4) with the plurality of holes positioned between the two protruding portions 423 (e.g., Lin fig. 4), the two recessed portions 520 are disposed at positions corresponding to the protruding portions 423 (e.g., Lin fig. 4), and the two protruding portions 423 are respectively inserted in and coupled to the two recessed portions (e.g., Lin fig. 4).
Thus claim 13 is rejected.
Regarding claim 14, Lin-M-H-J teaches the active optical cable of claim 12 (see above), wherein an end of the protruding portion 423 end is formed in a hemispherical shape (e.g., Lin fig. 3).
Thus claim 14 is rejected.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin-M-H-J as applied to claims 1, 11 above, with further OEB Witherspoon (US 6477303).
Regarding claim 15, Lin-M-H-J teaches the active optical cable of claim 11 (see above).
Lin-M-H-J does not explicitly state a pivot mark is formed at a lower end of the main body.
However, it was well-known to provide a pivot/bump mark 26 to formed at a lower end of the main body as evidenced by Witherspoon (e.g., Witherspoon fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pivot mark is formed at a lower end of the main body at least for the purpose of enabling proper/passive positioning on a substrate/PCB.
Thus claim 15 is rejected.
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin-M-H-J as applied to claims 1, 3 above, with further OEB Nagasaka et al. (US 20040202477; “Nagasaka”).
Regarding claim 3, Lin-M-H-J teaches the active optical cable of claim 1 (see above). wherein the optical engine 40/50 is formed to cover an optical element 30 formed on the PCB 20 portion (e.g., Lin fig. 5). Furthermore, Lin-M-H-J refers to element 40 (e.g., Lin fig. 5) as a “lens”, however the portions of element 40 that would apparently need to behave as a lens for coupling are each of the two bumps on element 40 that directly face the ends of OFs 60 (call the latter bumps the vertical bumps), respectively, and the two bumps on element 40 that directly face element 30 (e.g., call two these bumps on element 40 the horizontal bumps; Lin fig. 5; element 30 is a transceiver module which includes a light emitter; the two sets of bumps are positioned so as to allow light to bounce off reflective slanted surface 431). Additionally, Lin-M-H-J teaches a mirror-inclined plate that reflects light (e.g., Lin col. 3 lines 25-30: a coating of silver or gold on inclined surface 431 creates a thin, inclined mirror plate) and Lin defines a light path from an active element (e.g., this could be a laser diode of active element transceiver module 30; Lin figs. 5-6) via reflective inclined surface 431 to one of the optical fibers 60; Lin col. 4 lines 5-11; Lin figs. 5-6) .
Lin-M-H-J does not explicitly state the optical engine 40/50 comprises a first lens that condenses light emitted from an optical element; light that passes through the first lens; and a second lens that condenses light reflected by the mirror-inclined plate.
However, Nagasaka teaches the optical engine 18b/50a comprises a first lens 20 (e.g., Nagasaka fig. 6B) that condenses light emitted from an optical element 12 (e.g., Nagasaka fig. 6B: diverging light from element 12 is collimated/condensed so that it no longer diverges); light that passes through the first lens 20 is reflected from a metal layer/plate on inclined surface 22 (e.g., Nagasaka fig. 6B, ¶ 0055); and a second lens 54a (e.g., Nagasaka fig. 6B) that condenses light reflected by the mirror-inclined plate (e.g., Nagasaka fig. 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use convex lenses (e.g., like lens 20 and lens 54a in Nagasaka fig. 6B) to replace the aforementioned horizontal bumps and vertical bumps in Lin figs. 5-6 at least for the purpose of promoting efficient coupling. Such modification results the optical engine comprising a first lens that condenses light emitted from an optical element; a mirror-inclined plate that reflects light that passed through the first lens; and a second lens that condenses light reflected by the mirror-inclined plate.
Therefore, Lin-M-H-J with OEB Nagasaka [herein may be referred to as “Lin-M-H-J-Nagasaka” and or more simply as “Lin-M-H-J-N”] teaches the subject matter of claim 3.
Thus claim 3 is rejected.
Regarding claim 4, Lin-M-H-J-N teaches the active optical cable of claim 3 (see above), wherein the light condensed by the second lens (e.g., one of the vertical convex lenses substituted for a respective vertical bump in Lin figs. 5-6) passes through the optical fiber through an optical fiber end 60 (e.g., Lin figs. 5-6).
Thus claim 4 is rejected.
Regarding claim 5, Lin-M-H-J-N teaches the active optical cable of claim 3 (see above), wherein the mirror-inclined plate bends a path of light passing through the first lens by a 90-degree angle (e.g., Nagasaka fig. 6B, ¶ 0055).
Thus claim 5 is rejected.
Regarding claim 6, Lin-M-H-J-N teaches the active optical cable of claim 3 (see above), wherein the optical engine 50/40 includes an optical fiber connector 50 connected to the plurality of optical fibers 60; and a main body 40 coupled to the optical fiber connector 50 (e.g., Lin figs. 4-5), and the first lens and the second lens are disposed on the main body 40 (e.g., Lin fig. 5).
Thus claim 6 is rejected.
Regarding claim 7, Lin-M-H-J-N teaches the active optical cable of claim 3 (see above), wherein the optical engine 50/40 includes an optical fiber connector connected to the plurality of optical fibers 60 (e.g., Lin fig. 5); and a main body 40 coupled to the optical fiber connector 50, wherein a plurality of hole portions are formed in the optical fiber connector, the plurality of hole portions are arranged in a row in a first direction, and the second lenses are formed in plural numbers and arranged in a row at positions corresponding to each of the plurality of hole portions arranged in a row (e.g., Lin figs. 3-5).
Thus claim 7 is rejected.
Regarding claim 8, Lin-M-H-J-N teaches the active optical cable of claim 7 (see above), wherein the plurality of second lenses are arranged in a row in the first direction, and the first lenses are formed in plural numbers and are arranged in a row at a position corresponding to each of the plurality of second lenses arranged in a row at an angle of 90 degrees with respect to the mirror-inclined plate (e.g., Lin figs. 3-5).
Thus claim 8 is rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Lin-M-H-J-N teaches the active optical cable of claim 8 (see above), wherein the plurality of first lenses are arranged in a row in the first direction, an optical element 30 is formed on the PCB portion. (e.g., Lin figs. 3-5). Lin-M-H-J-N teaches a transceiver module 30 (e.g., Lin col. 4 lines 1-11)
Lin-M-H-J-N does not explicitly state the optical elements are formed in plural numbers and arranged in a row at positions corresponding to each of the plurality of first lenses arranged in a row.
However, it was well-known for a transceiver module to have the optical elements formed in plural numbers and arranged in a row at positions corresponding to each of the plurality of first lenses arranged in a row. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lin-M-H-J-N to have the optical elements formed in plural numbers and arranged in a row at positions corresponding to each of the plurality of first lenses arranged in a row at least for the purpose of having an active device for each corresponding lens-pair/fiber.
Thus claim 9 is rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Lin-M-H-J-N teaches the active optical cable of claim 3 (see above).
Lin-M-H-J-N does not explicitly state a magnification ratio of the first lens to the second lens is 1:1 to 1:2.
However, it was well-known for a magnification ratio of the first lens to the second lens is 1:1 to 1:2. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a magnification ratio of the first lens to the second lens is 1:1 to 1:2 at least for the purpose of having an optimizing coupling [see also: MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose; and/or “optimization of ranges”/“result effective variable” MPEP §2144.05].
Thus claim 10 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the PCB portion is connected to both ends of the optical cable portion, the optical engine is connected to both ends of the plurality of optical fibers, light emitted through an optical element of the PCB portion passes through one optical engine and passes from one end to the other end of the plurality of optical fibers, and light passing through the other end of the plurality of optical fibers passes through the other optical engine and is received through the optical element of the other PCB portion in combination with the rest of claim 16.
It is noted that claim 16 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights