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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 16-19) in the reply filed on 02/12/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 and 20 have been canceled. Adding new claims 21-26 have been acknowledged in the application.
During a telephone conversation with Atty. Stephen D. Huang (Reg. No. 45,304) on 03/09/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 21-30. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-19 and 31-36 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 21-30) in the reply filed on 03/09/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Newly submitted claims 21-36 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Group II (claims 21-30) and Group III (claims 31-36) are distinct for reasons have required a separate status in the art as shown by their different classification because of their recognized divergent subject matter, and a different field of search, for example,
Invention [I] comprises claims 16-19,
Invention [II] comprises claims 21-30, and
Invention [III] comprises claims 31-36.
Inventions [I], [II], and [III] are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a
single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination [I, II, and III] has separate utility such as a method for inspecting Fiber Array Units (FAUs) in co-packaged optics applications using an integrated inspection system tool, the method comprising: performing a first inspection mode (mode-1) using a visible camera to capture images of a FAU, wherein the images of the FAU are analyzed to detect defects, measure linear alignment of optical fibers of the FAU, and confirm pitch or separation distances between the optical fibers of the FAU; executing a second inspection mode (mode-2) using an Infrared (IR) camera to perform a three-dimensional scan of the FAU, wherein the IR camera assesses core pitch position by capturing images of the FAU at various angles; conducting a third inspection mode (mode-3) using a Beam Profiler to assess beam quality by measuring a shape and an intensity of output beams from each of the optical fibers of the FAU; implementing a fourth inspection mode (mode-4) to measure insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through each of the optical fibers in the FAU; and undertaking a fifth inspection mode (mode-5) wherein the light outputs of the FAU are compared against light outputs of a test FAU, measuring misalignments or differences in output beams from design or optimal locations, to evaluate the overall quality and performance of the FAU compared to the test FAU of Group I does NOT require the method comprising: capturing a first image of the FAU to measure alignment of a plurality of optical fibers of the FAU; capturing a second image of the FAU to assess a core pitch position of the plurality of optical fibers; assessing beam quality of an output beam of the plurality of optical fibers; measuring insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers; and comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU of Group II and/or the method comprising: capturing an image of the FAU; assessing beam quality of an output beam of a plurality of optical fibers of the FAU; measuring insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers; and comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU of Group III or vice versa. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-19 and 31-36 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 is rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
A method for inspecting a fiber array unit (FAU), the method comprising:
capturing a first image of the FAU to measure alignment of a plurality of optical fibers of the FAU;
capturing a second image of the FAU to assess a core pitch position of the plurality of optical fibers;
assessing beam quality of an output beam of the plurality of optical fibers;
measuring insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers; and
comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU.
Step 1: Claim 21 is directed toward the abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes.
Step 2a: While claim 21 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of: capturing a first image of the FAU to measure alignment of a plurality of optical fibers of the FAU; capturing a second image of the FAU to assess a core pitch position of the plurality of optical fibers; assessing beam quality of an output beam of the plurality of optical fibers; measuring insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers; and comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU. For the above stated reasons, the bold and underlined parts of claim 21 shown above have been considered as mental processes. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering and combining data by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical relationships and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "capturing a first image of the FAU to measure alignment of a plurality of optical fibers of the FAU; capturing a second image of the FAU to assess a core pitch position of the plurality of optical fibers; assessing beam quality of an output beam of the plurality of optical fibers; measuring insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers; and comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU".
This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
The courts have indicated that comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene) and ideas in and of themselves (Bilski and Alice) are all examples of judicial exceptions, particularly abstract ideas.
The courts have indicated that, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be a judicial exception, particularly abstract ideas (Benson) as were an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
Thus, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Step 2b: Claims recites additional elements that includes: “fiber array unit”, “visible camera”, “IR camera”, “personal computer”, and “display unit" therefore the claims recite the abstract ideas. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of receiving, manipulating or calculating and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic functions or components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the elements as combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of a method of inspection a fiber array unit. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The claim doesn't recite any details of what calculation or determination results are being considered, how evaluation for comparing results, and how initiating results are obtained or an indication of them, or what is being done with the results at the end.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea/ judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the genomically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. Capturing, assessing, measuring, and comparing are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 22-30 are dependent on their respective base claim 21, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 22-30 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 22-30 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker V Flook. Claims 22-30 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 22-30 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 21, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et al (US 2024/0369768 hereinafter “Morishima”) in view of Elkins, II et al (US 2016/0061690 hereinafter “Elkins II”) and Sutherland (US 2021/0341691).
Regarding claim 21; Morishima discloses a method for inspecting a fiber array unit FAU (70 @ figures 2-3), the method comprising:
capturing a first image of the FAU (70 @ figures 2-3 and paragraph [0029]: e.g., the rough alignment unit includes a first image obtaining unit, a measurement unit and a first rotation unit. The first image obtaining unit obtains an end surface image of the first optical fiber and an end surface image of the second optical fiber) to measure alignment (figures 6-7 and paragraphs [0058]-[0059]: e.g., the left-side MCF10 and the right-side MCF10 are aligned based on the result of the end face observation of the left-side MCF10 and the right-side MCF10 so that the correspondence between the plurality of arranged cores (first cores) on the end face (first end face) of the left side MCF10 and the plurality of arranged cores (second cores) on the end face (second end face) of the right side MCF10 falls within an allowable range in which the correspondence can be uniquely determined) of a plurality of optical fibers (10 @ figures 2-3) of the FAU (70 @ figures 2-3) by a camera (100 @ figure 4) is coupled to a control unit (120 @ figure 4);
capturing a second image of the FAU (70 @ figures 2-3 and paragraph [0029]: e.g., the fine alignment unit includes a second image obtaining unit, and a second rotation unit. The second image obtaining unit obtains a side surface image of the first and second optical fibers) to assess a core pitch (figures 8-10 and paragraph [0090]: e.g., a measurement unit (control unit 120) configured to measure, from the end surface images of the first and second optical fibers, a dimension of each of the plurality of first and second cores and a position of a center of each of the plurality of first and second cores as information relating to a first core arrangement formed of the plurality of first cores on the first end surface and information relating to a second core arrangement formed of the plurality of second cores on the second end surface) position of the plurality of optical fibers (10 @ figures 2-3) by the camera (100 @ figure 4) is coupled to the control unit (120 @ figure 4) by the camera (100 @ figure 4) is coupled to the control unit (120 @ figure 4). See figures 1-11
Morishima discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for assessing beam quality of an output beam of the plurality of optical fibers; and measuring insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers. However, Elkins, II teaches that it is known in the art to provide assessing beam quality of an output beam of the plurality of optical fibers (figures 62R, 62D @ figures 1 and 2A-2B and paragraph [0003]: e.g., Optical fiber connectors are used to optically connect one optical fiber to another. One parameter used to measure the quality of the optical fiber connection made by the optical fiber connector is the insertion loss (IL), which is a measure of how much light is lost when passing from one fiber to the other through the optical fiber connector “it is inherent to be good fiber connector alignment often leads to beam quality factor of the optical fiber); and measuring insertion loss (paragraph [0017]: e.g., measuring values of the insertion loss between the first and second optical fibers for different gap distances d>0 μm while actively maintaining alignment of the first and second ferrules using a position measurement system; and estimating a value for the insertion loss for a gap distance of d=0 μm based on the measured values of the insertion loss when d>0 μm) by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers (62R, 62D @ figures 1 and 2A-2B); and comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with assessing beam quality of an output beam of the plurality of optical fibers; and measuring insertion loss by analyzing an attenuation of light passing through the plurality of optical fibers as taught by Elkins II for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy to the performance of the active alignment process.
Morishima in view of Elkins II combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU. However, Sutherland teaches that it is known in the art to provide comparing a light output from the FAU (figures 35A-35B and 36A-36B and paragraph [0177]: e.g., a comparison of a first FAU 10 (A) fabricated with a signal-fiber array 50 including optical fibers 52 having a uniform diameter and a second FAU 10 (B) fabricated with a signal-fiber array 50 that has realistic variations in the diameter of the optical fibers 52 and the second FAU 10 (B) that includes realistic variations in the diameter of the optical fibers 52, fiber core position error is determined by first positioning the grid overlay 80 mathematically, such that the grid overlay 80 is centered on the midpoint of a line extending between the centers of the cores 72 of the two outboard optical fibers 52) to a light output from a reference FAU (figures 35A-35B, 36A-36B, and paragraph [0177]: e.g., a first FAU 10 (A) “ ideal fiber core position” fabricated with a signal-fiber array 50 including optical fibers 52 having a uniform diameter and a second FAU 10 (B) fabricated with a signal-fiber array 50 that has realistic variations in the diameter of the optical fibers 52. FIG. 36 also includes a grid overlay 80 with crosshatches 81 representing the target fiber core center positions (“ideal fiber core positions”) along a straight line with pitch (P). As may be seen in relation to the first FAU 10 (A), the grid overlay 80 and the ideal core positions represented by crosshatches 81 are based on ideal optical fibers 52 (A) (see FIG. 3) being arranged side-by-side in an array). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU as taught by Sutherland for the purpose of improving connection with high-density fiber array units.
Regarding claim 28; Morishima in view of Elkins II combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the comparing of the light output from the FAU to the light output from the reference FAU comprises measuring a misalignment or difference in output beams to evaluate a performance of the FAU. However, Sutherland teaches that it is known in the art to provide the comparing of the light output from the FAU to the light output from the reference FAU (figures 35A-35B and 36A-36B and paragraph [0177]) comprises measuring a misalignment or different (figures 36B, 37, 38 and paragraph [0179]: e.g., the signal-fiber array 50 of the FAU 10 may have different numbers of optical fibers 52 including, but not limited to, eight (8), sixteen (16), thirty-two (32), forty-eight (48), seventy-two (72), or ninety-six (96) optical fibers 52 to provide different sizes. FIG. 38 illustrates an example FAU 10 including 8 optical fibers 52. For each size the signal-fiber array 50, the desired number of optical fibers 52 (e.g., N optical fibers 52) may be selected at random from a large pool of optical fibers 52 with statistical estimates for a diameter variation of the cladding 74) in output beams to evaluate a performance of the FAU (10B @ figure 36B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU as taught by Sutherland for the purpose of improving connection with high-density fiber array units.
Regarding claim 30; Morishima in view of Elkins II combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the comparing of the light output from the FAU to the light output from the reference FAU comprises measuring a misalignment or difference between four circular channels of both the FAU and the reference FAU. However, Sutherland teaches that it is known in the art to provide the comparing of the light output from the FAU to the light output from the reference FAU (figures 35A-35B and 36A-36B and paragraph [0177]) comprises measuring a misalignment or difference (figures 36B, 37, 38 and paragraph [0179]) between four circular channels (52, 72 @ figures 36A-36B) of both the FAU (10B @ figure 36B) and the reference FAU (10A @ figure 36A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU as taught by Sutherland for the purpose of improving connection with high-density fiber array units.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Brace et al (US 2020/0049966 hereinafter “Brace”).
Regarding claim 22; Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the capturing of the first image of the FAU comprises analyzing the first image to detect defects. However, Brace teaches that it is known in the art to provide the capturing of the first image of the FAU (102, 106 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0021]: e.g., device 108 may capture the first image after being connected to optical cable 102 via a mechanical connection between optical connector 106 and tip connector 110) comprises analyzing the first image to detect defects (paragraph [0017]: e.g., camera 116 may capture a set of images and/or video that are to be analyzed by device 108 (or another device communicatively connected to device 108) to identify a defect, damage, and/or the like related to optical fibers 104-1 through 104-4. ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with limitation above as taught by Brace for the purpose of improving capturing of a set of images of optical fibers of optical cable by reducing or eliminating errors related to capturing the set of images.
Regarding claim 23; Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the capturing of the first image further comprises analyzing the first image to confirm a separation distance between the plurality of optical fibers. However, Brace teaches that it is known in the art to provide the capturing of the first image further comprises analyzing the first image to confirm a separation distance between the plurality of optical fibers (paragraph [0036]: e.g., device 108 is configured with information that identifies a configuration of optical cable 102 (e.g., information that identifies a quantity of optical fibers 104 included in optical cable 102, that identifies a distance between optical fibers 104 of optical cable 102, and/or the like), device 108 may be capable of determining an expected set of optical fibers 104 that is to be shown in each image that device 108 captures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with limitation above as taught by Brace for the purpose of improving capturing of a set of images of optical fibers of optical cable by reducing or eliminating errors related to capturing the set of images.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al (JP 2003 302307 A 2020/0049966 hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 24; Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the capturing of the second image comprises using an infrared (IR) camera to perform a three-dimensional scan of the FAU. However, Matsumoto teaches that it is known in the art to provide the capturing of the second image comprises using an infrared (IR) camera (31 @ figure 1: e.g., the CCD camera 31 is used for actual imaging, but an infrared camera or the like may be used for imaging.) to perform a three-dimensional scan of the FAU (i.e., the optical fiber array 2 @ figures 1 and 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with limitation above as taught by Matsumoto for the purpose of improving the coupling efficiency with other functional parts in the measurement core position of the optical fiber array.
Regarding claim 25; Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the capturing of the second image further comprises capturing the second image with the IR camera at various angles. However, Matsumoto teaches that it is known in the art to provide the capturing of the second image further comprises capturing the second image with the IR camera (30 @ figure 6) at various angles (figures 4 and 6: e.g., the end surface of the optical fiber array forms an inclination angle between the plane perpendicular to the central axis of the optical fiber on the vertical surface (yz plane) and the side surface of the optical fiber array that emits the emitted light (hereinafter referred to as array θy)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with limitation above as taught by Matsumoto for the purpose of improving the coupling efficiency with other functional parts in the measurement core position of the optical fiber array.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Montoya et al (US 2020/0049966 hereinafter “Montoya”).
Regarding claim 26; Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the assessing of the beam quality is performed using a beam profiler. However, Montoya teaches that it is known in the art to provide the assessing of the beam quality is performed using a beam profiler (figures 9A-9I and paragraph [0142]: e.g., an M2 measurement of beam quality by using a beam profiler camera such as that described in connection with FIG. 9G). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with limitation above as taught by Montoya for the purpose of improving by designing the photonic lantern to match more closely the output waveguide in order to minimize the losses.
Regarding claim 27; Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the assessing of the beam quality comprises measuring a shape and an intensity of the output beam. However, Montoya teaches that it is known in the art to provide the assessing of the beam quality comprises measuring a shape (854a, 845b @ figures 8A-8C,) and an intensity of the output beam (917, 918 @ figures 9A-9I and paragraphs [0030]: e.g., Monitoring the at least one characteristic of the common light beam can include measuring an M.sup.2 parameter, beam profile, power, or intensity of the common light beam. Measuring the intensity or power can include measuring on axis, at a center of a fundamental mode of the common light beam. Monitoring the at least one characteristic can include masking the common light beam with a shape corresponding to the one or more spatial modes of the common light beam to be set). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with limitation above as taught by Montoya for the purpose of improving by designing the photonic lantern to match more closely the output waveguide in order to minimize the losses.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Fukuyama et al (WO 2004 011982 A hereinafter “Fukuyama”).
Regarding claim 29; Morishima in view of Elkins II and Sutherland combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for inserting a laser beam into both the FAU and reference FAU at an incident beam angle. However, Fukuyama teaches that it is known in the art to provide the inserting a laser beam (L @ figure 3) into both the FAU (12 @ figures 1 and 3: e.g., the reflecting member 90 is in a rigid state between the first fiber array unit 12 and the second fiber array unit 14), and reference FAU (the second array
unit 14 @ figures 1 and 3) at an incident beam angle (figure 3: e.g., the influence due to the displacement of the transmitted light L of the optical device 1 OA having the monitoring function, the variation in the characteristics due to the incident angle θ5, θ6 in Feg.3, the influence of the interference). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Morishima with comparing a light output from the FAU to a light output from a reference FAU as taught by Fukuyama for the purpose of controlling with high accuracy the angle of the reflecting member to improve the effect of the positional deviation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Aguilar et al (US 2023/0333331) discloses the alignment system includes a reflective mirror, an image capturing system, and a data processing system.
2) Bradley et al (US Patent No. 9,372,304) discloses A multicore fiber alignment apparatus is described, having a chassis into which is mounted ferrule-holding means for holding a multicore fiber ferrule having one or more capillaries extending therethrough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
March 15, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights