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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 7/2/26, regarding the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirolli (US 4,062,620), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner directs the Applicant to Chapter 2100, § 2144.03 [R-6] of the MPEP which states:
To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).
According to the MPEP above, Applicant has thus not adequately traversed the Examiner's finding of obviousness, since the Applicant has not pointed out any errors in the Examiner's Action, which would include statements regarding why the noticed facts are not considered to be common knowledge or well known in the art. The Applicant simply makes statements that the Examiner must show evidence that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify the annular magnet of Pirolli, and thus only makes a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to why the noticed facts are not considered to be common knowledge or well known in the art, and therefore is inadequate in overcoming the rejection(s).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/2/26. These drawings are accepted.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirolli (US 4,062,620).
Re. Claim 1, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re. Claims 9-15, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest a device comprising: a ring-shaped connector comprising a ring-shaped member having an opening, a first alignment member at a first side of the opening and a second alignment member at a second side of the opening that is opposite the first side, wherein the first alignment member is physically separated from the second alignment member, wherein the opening is shaped to receive a first fiber array in the first side and a second fiber array in the second side, wherein the first alignment member is configured to align the first fiber array within the opening, wherein the second alignment member is configured to align the second fiber array within the opening.
Re. Claims 16-20, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest a method comprising: bringing an end of a first fiber array near an end of a second fiber array along a first direction, wherein the first fiber array comprises a first magnet and the second fiber array comprises a second magnet; magnetically attracting the first magnet to a third magnet to align the end of the first fiber array to the end of the second fiber array, wherein a magnetic attraction between the first magnet and the second magnet is along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction; and
magnetically attracting the second magnet to a fourth magnet to align the end of the second fiber array to the end of the first fiber array, wherein a magnetic attraction between the second magnet and the fourth magnet is along a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
The most applicable prior art, Pirolli (US 4,062,620), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Angelov (US 2013/0108216 A1) and Shikama (US 12,276,847 B2) each disclose connector arrangements utilizing magnets for physical coupling between fibers, but each fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the specific combination of limitations required by the claimed invention.
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 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 8/7/26
Prosecution Insights