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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the one ends” multiple times which appears to be a grammatical error for “the one end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Optical fiber alignment portion in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 1 as an orifice in the clamp sheet in which fiber optic cables may be placed in;
Horizontal moving means in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 2 as component 30 comprising a support 31 and sliding portion 34;
Sliding portion in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 2 as component 34 which is slidably connected through a guide groove 33 on the upper surface of the support 31
Fixing portion in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 2 and ¶40 as a portion of the sliding portion to which fiber optic cables may be fixed;
Settlement portion in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 2 and ¶40 as a portion 36 of the sliding portion that holds a mounting space 37;
Loading portion in claim 2, disclosed in Fig. 1 as a space/gap 24 on one side of the clamp sheet 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999. MPEP 2173.05(a)III. The following elements are being interpreted as follows:
-Clamp sheet- disclosed as a structural piece 20 in Fig. 1 in which cables may be slid into so that said cables may be aligned for processing by the ribbonizing adhesive applicator;
-insertion step- disclosed as a portion 25 of the clamp 20 sheet which comprises a gap that cables may be moved through to get to an alignment portion 26 of the clamp sheet.
“grip portion” in claim 1, is not interpreted under 112f in view of the structural modifier “grip”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, 10-15 recite, “an insertion step (25) that makes a width (D) on one side of the optical fiber alignment portion (26) in which the optical fibers (10) are loaded horizontally to be relatively smaller than a diameter of the optical fibers (10) to keep the multiple optical fibers (10) loaded in the optical fiber alignment portion (26) from escaping therefrom..” First, it is unclear as to what width (D) is being recited in the claim since there is no recitation as to what the width is relative to. Claim 1 only recites that the insertion step makes a portion on one side of the alignment portion. Is width (D) a measurement for a portion measured across the clamp sheet that the fibers slide across, or is it measurement of the size of the gap that is formed in the sheet which resided in the insertion step as disclosed in Fig. 1.
Furthermore since the size of width (D) is dependent upon the size of a material worked upon, this make the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite since it is unclear as to whether Applicant’s invention would be infringed upon if a cable with a diameter that is the same or smaller than the width (D) were used.
Claim 1, line 25 recites, “multiple strands of the optical fibers are aligned in a straight line..”. It is unclear as to whether this just some or all of the optical fibers recited.
Claim 3 recites that the clamp sheet has a “plate-like ‘L’ shape.” It is unclear as to what the scope of “plate-like” entails.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the horizontal moving means" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the clamp sheet" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (KR 10-2325582) in view of Tokuda et al. (US 4720165).
As to claim 1, Jun discloses an optical fiber ribboning adhesive applicator that applies and adhesive to a plurality of optical fibers (¶1). Jun discloses that the device comprises of: a clamp sheet 20 with grip 22, a body portion 23, insertion step 25, alignment portion 26; horizontal moving means 30 comprising a support 31; said support comprises a fixing groove 32 on one side for vertically mounting the clamp sheet 20; a sliding portion 34 which is installed to be slidable and straightly movable along a guide groove 33 cut in an upper surface of the support 31; the sliding portion 34 includes a fixing portion 35 and a settlement portion 36 formed integrally on one side of said fixing portion; said sliding portion further comprises of a mounting space in a longitudinal direction of the device (Fig. 1-4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
821
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jun discloses that the device is used for applying adhesive to optical fiber strands (¶1), but fails to teach or disclose that the device has a tray for holding adhesive that is to be applied to optical fiber strands. Tokuda et al. disclose an apparatus for fabricating an optical fiber sheet (Abstract). Tokuda discloses that it is known and conventional to supply a tray 13 portion in an adhesive application device for optical fibers so as to apply adhesive to fibers aligned adjacent to one another (Fig. 4 below; Fig. 1A, 5A, 5B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the adhesive tray of Tokuda in the apparatus taught by Jun because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful means for applying adhesive to fibers aligned adjacently to one another. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image3.png
265
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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 the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the device of the above references as combined contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. June discloses that the clamp sheet has a loading portion 24 formed in a shape so that the gap of said loading portion gradually narrows.
As to claim 3, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Jun discloses that the clamp sheet contains L-shaped portions (Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Tokuda discloses that the tray portion 13 has a “U” like shape for holding adhesive, said portion resides under a path which optical fiber strands pass through the device (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (KR 10-2325582) in view of Kurino (US 20240142702).
As to claim 5, as seen above, Jun discloses a horizontal moving means 30 and a support upon which said horizontal moving means slidably resides upon the guide groove to be capable of moving towards and away from the fixing groove 32 that the clamp sheet 20 is placed (Fig. 2, Fig. 3), but fails to specifically teach or disclose that a magnet may be placed in the support and the lower portion of the horizontal moving means as currently claimed. Hattori discloses an optical wire holder (Abstract). Hattori discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to provide a magnet 9 on a lower surface of a sliding member. Kurino disclose an optical fiber cutting device (Abstract). Kurino discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to provide a set of magnets on both opposing sides of a sliding member so as to control the motion of the sliding mechanism such that the magnets will cause the sliding mechanism to return to its initial position after it is manually moved (¶4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sliding mechanism of Jun to include the disclosed magnets and would have been motivated to do so because Kurino teaches that said magnets allow for the control of the motion of the sliding mechanism and automatic return to a starting position when not in use.
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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 the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the device of the above references as combined contains all of the structural limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 6, Kurino discloses that at least a pair of magnets are placed on each opposing side of the sliding mechanism to provide a starting and engaging position of the sliding mechanism (Id.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roll et al. (US 5388174) discloses an optical fiber connector which aligns fibers for adhesive application and curing to form a splice; Zimmer (US 5252050) discloses an optical fiber ribbonizer with adhesive injection port.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745 /MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745