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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/25 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pirolli (US 4,062,620).
Re. Claim 9, Pirolli discloses a device comprising:
a ring-shaped connector comprising an opening along axis XX’, a first alignment member (e.g., first side of magnet 20) at a first side of the opening and a second alignment member (e.g., second side of magnet 20) at a second side of the opening, wherein the opening is shaped to receive a first fiber array 29 in the first side and a second fiber array 30 in the second side, wherein the first alignment member (e.g., first side of magnet 20) is configured to align the first fiber array 29 within the opening, wherein the second alignment member (e.g., second side of magnet 20) is configured to align the second fiber array 30 within the opening (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 40-56; col. 4 lines 1-17.
Re. Claim 13, Pirolli discloses the first alignment member (e.g., first side of magnet 20) further comprises a magnetic member (col. 3 line 43).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-8 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirolli (US 4,062,620).
Re. Claims 1, 14, and 15, Pirolli discloses a device comprising:
a first fiber array comprising a plurality of first optical fibers 29 and a plurality of first magnetic members 27 (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-54; col. 4 lines 4-7 and 10-17);
a second fiber array comprising a plurality of second optical fibers 30 and a plurality of second magnetic members 38 (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-54; col. 4 lines 4-7 and 10-17); and
a connector comprising a third magnetic member 20 adjacent an opening, wherein the opening extends from a first side of the connector to a second side of the connector, wherein the first magnetic members 27 of the first fiber array correspond to third magnetic member 20 near the first side, wherein the second magnetic members 38 of the second fiber array correspond to third magnetic member 20 near the second side (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-48; col. 4 lines 4-7 and 10-17).
However, Pirolli does not disclose an arrangement wherein the connector comprises a plurality of third magnetic members, and instead discloses only a singular magnetic member 20 having an annular shape. Similarly, Pirolli does not disclose an arrangement wherein the first alignment member comprises a first magnet and the second alignment member comprises a second magnet.
The claimed arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Re. Claim 2, Pirolli renders obvious the device as discussed above. In Pirolli, the first magnetic members 27 are cylindrical and surround each first optical fiber 29, and the third magnetic member 20 is also cylindrical with one end surrounding the first optical fibers 29 and a second end surrounding the second optical fibers 30 (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-39). While Pirolli does not disclose an arrangement wherein the first magnetic members are located on opposite vertical sidewalls of the first fiber array and the third magnetic members are located on opposite vertical sidewalls of the opening, the same would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plurality of magnets in an annular fashion as is taught by the prior art.
Re. Claim 3, Pirolli renders obvious the device as discussed above. As previously discussed, the third magnetic member 20 is cylindrical with one end surrounding the first optical fibers 29 and a second end surrounding the second optical fibers 30 (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-39). While Pirolli does not disclose an arrangement wherein the plurality of third magnetic members comprise a first set of third magnetic members located near the first side and a second set of third magnetic members located near the second side, the same would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plurality of magnets in an annular fashion as is taught by the prior art.
Re. Claim 4, Pirolli renders obvious the device as discussed above. Pirolli does not disclose an arrangement wherein the first fiber array has a different thickness than the second fiber array. The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of coupling differing numbers of optical fibers to one another, thereby increasing the functionality of the device. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 5, Pirolli renders obvious the device as discussed above. Pirolli also discloses the connector is ring-shaped (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-39). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 6, Pirolli renders obvious the device as discussed above. Pirolli also discloses the plurality of first magnetic members 27 are at least partially within the opening (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 50-56; col. 4 lines 1-2). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claims 7-8, Pirolli renders obvious the device as discussed above. However, Pirolli does not disclose arrangement wherein either (a) the first fiber array is optically coupled to a grating coupler of a photonic die, or (b) wherein the first fiber array is optically coupled to an edge coupler of a photonic die.
The claimed arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of incorporation the device into an optical network using well-known components. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 16, Pirolli discloses a method comprising:
bringing an end of a first fiber array near an end of a second fiber array, wherein the first fiber array comprises a first magnet 27 and the second fiber array comprises a second magnet 38 (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-54; col. 4 lines 4-7 and 10-17);
magnetically attracting the first magnet 27 to a third magnet 20 to align the end of the first fiber array to the end of the second fiber array; and magnetically attracting the second magnet 38 to the third magnet 20 to align the end of the second fiber array to the end of the first fiber array (Fig. 3; col. 3 lines 37-48; col. 4 lines 4-7 and 10-17).
However, Pirolli does not disclose an arrangement wherein the second magnet is magnetically attracted to a fourth magnet to align the end of the second fiber array to the end of the first fiber array.
The claimed arrangement, wherein a third and fourth magnet perform the function of the disclosed single magnet 20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Re. Claim 17, Pirolli renders obvious the method as discussed above. Pirolli also discloses bringing the end of a first fiber array near the end of a second fiber array comprises inserting the end of the first fiber array and the end of the second fiber array into a ring-shaped connector (col. 3 lines 37-39 and 50-56; col. 4 lines 1-7), wherein the ring-shaped connector comprises the magnet 20. The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 18, Pirolli renders obvious the method as discussed above. Pirolli also discloses magnetically attracting the first magnet 27 to the third magnet 20 aligns an end of a first optical fiber 29 within the first fiber array to an end of a second optical fiber 30 within the second fiber array (Fig. 3; col. 4 lines 4-17). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Claim(s) 9-12, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa et al. (US 4,641,915).
Re. Claim 9, Asakawa et al. discloses a device 5 comprising:
a ring-shaped connector comprising an opening (col. 1 lines 56-67, col. 3 lines 57-64) a first alignment member 7 at a first side of the opening and a second alignment member 6 at a second side of the opening (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 48-57), wherein the opening is shaped to receive a first fiber 10 in the first side and a second fiber 10a in the second side, wherein the first alignment member 7 is configured to align the first fiber 10 within the opening, wherein the second alignment member 6 is configured to align the second fiber 10a within the opening (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 7-12).
However, Asakawa et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein the opening is shaped to receive an array of fibers, instead of a single fiber on both sides.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth capabilities of the connector by providing additional optical fiber communication lines. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re. Claims 10-12, Asakawa et al. renders obvious the device as discussed above. Moreover, Asakawa et al. discloses the first alignment member 7 comprises a first plate mechanically connected to a first surface of the opening by at least one first spring 13; the first alignment member further comprises a second plate mechanically connected to a second surface of the opening by at least one second spring 13; and the first alignment member comprises a threaded shaft 12 rotatably extending through the ring-shaped connector to the first plate (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 53-64). The clamed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 16, Asakawa et al. discloses a method comprising:
bringing an end of a first fiber 6 near an end of a second fiber 7, wherein the first fiber 6 comprises a first magnet 15 (e.g., upper portion) and the second fiber 7 comprises a second magnet 15a (e.g., lower portion); magnetically attracting the first magnet 15 to a third magnet 15a (e.g., upper portion) to align the end of the first fiber 6 to the end of the second fiber 7; and magnetically attracting the second magnet 15a to a fourth magnet 15 (e.g., lower portion) to align the end of the second fiber 7 to the end of the first fiber 6 (Fig. 5a; col. 5 lines 1-14).
However, Asakawa et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein the method comprises the alignment of arrays, instead of singular optical fibers.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth capabilities of the connector by providing additional optical fiber communication lines. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re. Claim 19, Asakawa et al. renders obvious the device as discussed above. Moreover, Asakawa et al. discloses the first fiber 6 comprises the fourth magnet 15 (e.g., lower portion) and the second fiber 7 comprises the third magnet 15a (e.g., upper portion) (Fig. 5a; col. 5 lines 1-14). The clamed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 20, Asakawa et al. renders obvious the device as discussed above. Asakawa et al does not disclose an arrangement wherein magnetically attracting the first magnet to the third magnet aligns a first evanescent coupler within the first fiber array to a second evanescent coupler within the second fiber array, and instead of drawn to linear fiber coupling.
Evanescent couplers are well known in the art and enable coupling between fiber ends which are not linearly aligned, and the claimed arrangement would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of enabling a rotary joint for fiber ends which are not linearly aligned. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 2/28/26