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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claims 31-37, these claims recite recites the phrases “A computer-readable medium” and “The computer-readable medium” which can cover both transitory and non-transitory and can be interpreted as a signal; and which does not fall within the four categories for patent eligible subject matter. It is suggested that the phrase “A computer-readable medium” is changed to “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” (and make similar changes to claims 32-37) so that claim 31 would be clearly with a statutory category of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 31, 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzenbach et al (US 2014/0363133) in view of Georgescu (US 2015/0238148).
Regarding claim 31, Schwarzenbach et al discloses a method comprising: receiving an image of an end face of a fiber (Fig.2; paragraph 28); and generating an alignment instruction, wherein the alignment instruction includes coordinates identifying the end face of the fiber in the image and includes a rotation angle and direction that aligns an axis of the fiber with a reference key (paragraphs 23-26). Although Schwarzenbach et al doesn’t disclose the use of a neural network, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Georgescu (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Georgescu in the system of Schwarzenbach et al in view of the desire to provide fast and more efficient data process.
Regarding claims 34-35, the specific scheme and configuration utilized for the alignment would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 36, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 33-34 of Schwarzenbach et al.
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzenbach et al (US 2014/0363133) in view of Georgescu (US 2015/0238148), and further in view of Huang et al (US 2005/0254754).
Regarding claim 32, although the modified device of Schwarzenbach doesn’t specifically mention the use of a PM optical fiber, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Huang et al (paragraph 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Huang in the modified of Schwarzenbach in view of the desire to provide a stable and predictable orientation of the light wave.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 28 of Haung et al.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzenbach et al (US 2014/0363133) in view of Georgescu (US 2015/0238148), and further in view of Gnanamani et al (US 2015/0131881).
Regarding claim 37, although the modified device of Schwarzenbach et al does not disclose the feature of overlaying a bounding with annotated rotational angles, such feature is well known in the art as disclosed by Gnanamani et al (paragraphs 64-65) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Ganamani et al in the modified device of Schwarzenbach et al in view of the desire to offer an ability of displaying a bounding box with angle and direction information resulting in improving the system by providing additional data for the user.
Claim(s) 38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzenbach et al (US 2014/0363133) in view of Dinkel (US 2024/0085644).
Regarding claim 38, Schwarzenbach et al discloses a method comprising: rotating a fiber using alignment instructions from a fiber detection and alignment system, wherein the fiber detection and alignment system generates the alignment instructions using at least one image of an end face of a fiber (paragraphs 23-28). Although it doesn’t mention the use of a ribbon for placing the fiber therein, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Dinkel (Fig.1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Dinkel in the device of Schwarzenbach et al in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 40, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 23-26 of Schwarzenbach et al.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzenbach et al (US 2014/0363133) in view of Dinkel (US 2024/0085644), and further in view of Georgescu (US 2015/0238148).
Regarding claim 39, although the modified device of Schwarzenbach et al does not disclose the use of a neural network, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Georgescu (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Georgescu in the modified device of Schwarzenbach et al in view of the desire to provide fast and more efficient data process. Further, the specific manner in which the neural network is utilized would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting designer’s program requirements and involving only routine skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878