Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/749,338

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING CLEAVE ANGLE METROLOGY FOR AN OPTICAL FIBER

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 20, 2024
Examiner
LEE, HWA S
Art Unit
2877
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ram Photonics Industrial LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
518 granted / 718 resolved
+4.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
768
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 718 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims have generally been amended to recite that the position sensing device is now "a two-dimensional position sensing device disposed in an x-y plane and operable to measure an x-y position of the characterization light emitted from the distal tip." New references are introduced in this action showing a device sometimes referred to as a position sensitive detector or PSD receiving light output from the end of a fiber to obtain position of the spot of light and deduce information pertaining to pose/cleave angle: Whitney et al. (US 5,131,745) shows a PSD (photoposition sensor 54) at the output of fiber 16 to obtain the pose: PNG media_image1.png 284 514 media_image1.png Greyscale Cherel (US 2008/0198370) shows in Fig. 4 a matrix sensor (4) at the output of cleaved fiber 19 and obtains the position of light spot 27 to obtain pose information regarding the fiber: PNG media_image2.png 328 570 media_image2.png Greyscale Suzuki et al. (US 2012/0044483) shows a method for measuring exit angle of an optical fiber: PNG media_image3.png 368 602 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 1-8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Berg et al. (US 2022/0277231) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Whitney et al (US 5,131,745). Summary of the combination of Berg and Whitney: Berg is generally relied up for showing cameras around the fiber distal end of the optical fiber as well as a position sensing detector. Whitney shows injection of light into the proximal end of a fiber and projecting the light onto a photoposition sensor (position sensitive detector) to output an X-Y position of the light spot on the sensor. Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Berg: Regarding claim 1: Berg shows a system for measuring the offset of an object as follows: 1. A system for measuring a cleave angle of an optical fiber, the system comprising: a light source configured to emit light (core light source 42, profile light source 360); an optical fiber (17 or fiber ferrule 14 having fiber 17 as it is common to refer to a bare optical fiber having addition components such as a ferrule, connector, jacket, to be an optical fiber) having a proximal tip, a distal tip, and a longitudinal axis, wherein the optical fiber is configured to receive the light emitted by the light source at the proximal tip and to emit characterization light from the distal tip (para. [0007]: "Bare optical fibers typically include a core 27 through which the light travels"); a first camera facing toward the optical fiber (Fig. 4: "imaging module 35"), wherein the first camera is configured to measure a first position of the distal tip and a first angle corresponding to the longitudinal axis (this limitation is taken to cover a camera that can take images from which the position and angle can be measured, not that the camera performs the calculation of position and angle); PNG media_image4.png 430 604 media_image4.png Greyscale a second camera facing toward the optical fiber, wherein the second camera is configured to measure a second position of the distal tip and a second angle corresponding to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4: "imaging module 35"); and a two-dimensional position sensing device disposed in an x-y plane and operable to measure an x-y position of the characterization light emitted from the distal tip (para. [0045]: "determining the location of the first image element may include fitting a two-dimensional Gaussian function to the core disk, determining a location of a peak of the fitted two-dimensional Gaussian function in the core image, and defining the location of the first image element as pixel coordinates of the peak of the fitted two-dimensional Gaussian function in the core image"; para. [0113]: "Each of the core imager 37 comprising a two-dimensional array of sensor elements)"; para. [0127]: "Analysis of the core images may include…the position of the core in the core image (in x-y pixel coordinates")). Alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Whitney in view of Berg: Regarding claim 1: Whitney shows a system for aligning the optical axis of a fiber optic element as follows: 1. A system for measuring a cleave angle of an optical fiber, the system comprising: a light source configured to emit light (light source 32); an optical fiber (16) having a proximal tip, a distal tip, and a longitudinal axis, wherein the optical fiber is configured to receive the light emitted by the light source at the proximal tip and to emit characterization light from the distal tip (column 4, lines 47-57: "The distal end 30 of fiber optic element 14 is connected to a light source 32… lens 52 for focusing on sensor 54 the light from light source 32 which emanates from the end 16 of fiber optic 14"); PNG media_image5.png 362 540 media_image5.png Greyscale a two-dimensional position sensing device disposed in an x-y plane and operable to measure an x-y position of the characterization light emitted from the distal tip (column 4, lines 61-64: "Sensor 54 may be a photoposition sensor. The position 58 of optical axis 56 on sensor 54 is determined by X-Y resolver circuit 64,"). PNG media_image6.png 356 478 media_image6.png Greyscale Whitney does not show two cameras facing toward the optical fiber as recited in claim 1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use cameras, as taught by Berg, to image the position of the optical fiber in aligning the fiber to a position and angle in Whitney. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to use the photoposition sensor 54 of Whitney to measure d2 in Fig. 12 of Berg. 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first camera is disposed along a direction that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (Berg para. [0108]: “The reflectors 52 may allow flexible placement of the profile imaging modules 35 and light sources 36 while maintaining a generally orthogonal angle of incidence between the rays of light 50 and the center axis of ferrule 14."). 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the second camera is disposed along a direction that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (see citation for claim 2 above). 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the first camera and the second camera are disposed in directions that are orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and the first camera is disposed along a direction that is orthogonal to the second camera (See Berg Fig. 4). 5. The system of claim 1, further comprising a first backlight disposed opposite the first camera and operable to illuminate at least the distal tip of the optical fiber (Berg Para. [0112]: "Each profile light source 36 may provide light 50 having a cross-section larger than the ferrule 14, thereby backlighting both apexes and end-face of the ferrule 14."). 6. The system of claim 1, further comprising a second backlight disposed opposite the second camera and operable to illuminate at least the distal tip of the optical fiber (See Berg Fig. 4). 7. The system of claim 1, further comprising an optical fiber chuck configured to support the optical fiber (Berg para. [0103]: "measurement port 38"). 8. The system of claim 7, wherein the optical fiber chuck comprises a mechanical clamp or a vacuum clamp (Berg para. [0103]: "a ferrule holder"). As to claim 20, please see the citations given for claim 1 for Berg and Whitney. As for the multi-stage axis, Berg shows a positioner 40 and Whitney shows an adjustment unit 40 configured to support the optical fiber and translate the optical fiber is a first direction and/or a second direction. Claim(s) 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherel (US 2008/0198370) in view of Floris et al. (US 10, 823,637) and Berg et al. (US 2022/0377231). Cherel shows, e.g. Figs. 4-6: 9. A method for aligning the optical axis of an optical fiber, the method comprising: providing an optical fiber ("optical fiber 19") having a longitudinal axis and a distal tip characterized by a cleave angle(Para. [0030]: "In Fig. 4, the optical face 23 makes an angle"); emitting light from a light source, wherein the optical fiber is configured to receive the light emitted by the light source (Para. [0028]: "light being injected into said optical connector by a means 17 (not shown)"); emitting characterization light from the distal tip of the optical fiber (Para. [0028]: " The energy injected at one of the ends of the optical fiber 19 by the means 17 leaves the other end of the optical fiber 19 via an optical face 23."); detecting, at a two-dimensional image sensor disposed in an x-y plane, an x-y position of the characterization light (Para. [0030]: "the light spot 27, detected by the matrix sensor 4, is laterally offset from the optical axis 13. The value of this lateral offset depends on the polishing face angle, on the longitudinal offset of the optical face 23"); and determining, based on the characterization light and the pose of the distal tip of the optical fiber, the cleave angle of the optical fiber (Para. [0030]: " The value of this lateral offset depends on the polishing face angle, on the longitudinal offset of the optical face 23 relative to the plane 6 and on the optical characteristics of the fiber 19."). Determination of cleave angle: Although Cherel shows the relationship of the polishing face angle (cleave angle) to the other parameters, such as its pose, enabling its calculation, Cherel does not explicitly state that the cleave angle is calculated. Floris shows that calculating the cleave angle is desirable (Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify Cherel to calculate the cleave angle in order to optimize interconnections with less loss. Determination of pose from imaging the tip of the fiber: Although Cherel shows determining the pose of the fiber, Cherel does not image the fiber tip to obtain the pose of the fiber. Berg shows shows precision core imaging of fiber optics where the tip of a fiber is imaged (see Figs. 3-5, 7-9). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use cameras, as taught by Berg, to image the position of the optical fiber to obtain the pose of the fiber end, thereby augment the pose measurement of Cherel. 10. The method of claim 9, further comprising an optical fiber chuck configured to support the optical fiber (Cherel Para. [0002]: " a Vee or a centering mechanism."; para. [0036]) 11. The method of claim 10, wherein determining the pose of the optical fiber includes translating the optical fiber chuck and the optical fiber along the longitudinal axis (this would be inherent in aligning the fiber in preparation for the measurement; see also Cherel para. [0027]) 12. The method of claim 11, wherein translating comprises displacing the optical fiber along the longitudinal axis (see claim 11 above). 13. The method of claim 9, wherein the pose of the distal tip of the optical fiber includes a position and angle (col. 7: 24-26; position is known and rotation angle is known). 14. The method of claim 9, wherein the imaging is performed by a first camera and a second camera, the first camera and the second camera being disposed in directions that are orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (see Berg Fig. 4). 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the first camera measures a first position of the distal tip and a first angle corresponding to the longitudinal axis (see Berg Fig. 9). 16. The method of claim 14, wherein the second camera measures a second position of the distal tip and a second angle corresponding to the longitudinal axis (see Berg Fig. 4). 17. The method of claim 14, wherein the first camera is disposed along a direction that is orthogonal to the second camera (see Berg Fig. 4). 18. The method of claim 9, wherein detecting, at the image sensor, the characterization light includes determining a position of the characterization light (Para. [0030]: "the light spot 27, detected by the matrix sensor 4, is laterally offset from the optical axis 13. The value of this lateral offset depends on the polishing face angle, on the longitudinal offset of the optical face 23"). 19. The method of claim 14, further comprising illuminating the distal tip via a first backlight disposed opposite the first camera and a second backlight disposed opposite the second camera (Berg Para. [0112]: "Thus, the ferrule 14 may be illuminated from behind (or “backlit”) by each profile light source 36 from the perspective of the profile imaging module 35 at the other end of the optical path 48."). Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherel, Floris, and Berg as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Iida et al. (JP 2005/33875). PNG media_image7.png 228 510 media_image7.png Greyscale Although Cherel and Berg do not show the equation of claim 21, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given Iida shows an equation relating the cleave angle θ1 to the angle of the exit beam θ4 and the use of geometric information of the distance between the distance to the two--dimensional sensor and fiber tip and the x-y position of the light detected on the sensor (e.g. Floris: "A measurement method determines the end-face angle relative to the optical axis of the fiber, as well as the angular misalignment of the fiber with respect to the tool.") PNG media_image8.png 316 356 media_image8.png Greyscale Conclusion 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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm. 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. /Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 09, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 09, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596177
LIDAR DEVICE WITH HEATER WIRE FOR HEATING OPTICAL WINDOW OF HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590800
STABILITY ENHANCED RESONATOR FIBER OPTIC GYRO (RFOG)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590891
REAL-TIME, REFERENCE-FREE BACKGROUND ORIENTED SCHLIEREN IMAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584852
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONCURRENT MEASUREMENTS OF INTERFEROMETRIC AND ELLIPSOMETRIC SIGNALS OF MULTI-LAYER THIN FILMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579628
OVERLAY MEASUREMENT BETWEEN LAYERS OF A SEMICONDUCTOR SPECIMEN BASED ON CENTER OF SYMMETRY (COS) LOCALIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+3.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 718 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month