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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagna et al (US 2012/0027346 A1) in view of Hengelmolen et al (US 2002/0076167 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Castagna discloses (Fig. 3; para. 0057 – 0059) an optical cable comprising:
an array of at least one optical waveguide 210 having a longitudinal (horizontal) axis;
at least one optical ferrule 110 (detailed in Figs. 2 and 8; para. 0034, 0036) attached to the array of optical waveguides/fibers 210 (their right ends); and
a cable retainer (to the left from the ferrule 100 in Fig. 3) attached to the optical waveguide 210 and spaced apart from the ferrule 110,
wherein when the optical waveguide 210 is held by the cable retainer so that the portion of the optical waveguide 210 at the cable retainer is horizontally straight with respect to gravity (the retainer is used to hold the assembly horizontally and properly position/align the optical ferrule 110 relative to an underlying substrate/board 170 by viewing an alignment structure 174 through a viewing surface 442 and centering alignment marks 444,440, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5; para. 0048 – 0051).
Since the optical waveguides 210 (inherently) have some degree of elasticity/flexibility, they sag and slightly deflect downward under their weight (force of gravity). While Castagna does not acknowledge such effect, Hengelmolen discloses (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0052 – 0056) a ferrule 1 receiving an array of optical waveguides 31 (optical fiber ribbon) and acknowledges the sagging effect of gravity/weight on horizontally oriented optical fibers that results in a deflection angle q, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (“generally, since optical fibers are likely to be bent, there are many cases where the optical fibers are deflected or bent, as shown in FIG. 2, due to a bending tendency and self-weight, when a multiple-fiber optical fiber ribbon is horizontally placed” at para. 0052). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the portion of the optical waveguide at the ferrule 110 in the optical subassembly of Castagna sags under the force of gravity/weight, as an inherent effect which is expressly taught by Hengelmolen.
Hengelmolen experimentally studies such effect and teaches that sinq = 0.04 (para. 0055 and 0056). Hence, the Castagna – Hengelmolen combination considers that the portion of the optical waveguide at the ferrule sags by a certain percentage which is determined by d×sinq, where d is a distance between the cable retainer and the optical ferrule. The Castagna – Hengelmolen considers that the amount of sagging is to be less than a predetermined percentage, x%, of the distance d in order to minimize the effect of sagging on the alignment accuracy between the ferrule 110 and the substrate/board 170: sagging causes angular misalignment between the optical axis Z of the ferrule 110 (Fig. 2g) and the normal to the substrate/board 170 and induces a distortion/skew of the alignment structure 440 of the ferrule 100 relative to the alignment marks 444 of the substrate/board 170.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Castagna – Hengelmolen combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claims 2 – 5, as detailed above for claim 1, the Castagna – Hengelmolen combination considers that the amount of sagging/deflection is to be less than a predetermined percentage. The amount of sagging/deflection is d×sinq. Hengelmolen cites (para. 0055 and 0056), by way of example but not limitation, an experimentally determined value of sinq = 0.04 = 4% of d, which is within the ranges recited by the claims.
As relevant comments, the following is also noted:
(a) Hengelmolen determined 4% for stripped/bare fibers. Clad fibers would have less flexibility, but more weight which at least partially offsets reduced flexibility so that the degree of sagging would change by less compared to the effect of the fiber cladding alone. Furthermore, the degree of sagging/deflection is determined by the weight of the ferrule, whereas the instant application discloses neither the mechanical properties of the optical waveguides (e.g., their flexural modulus, etc) nor the weight of the ferrule (and its impact on the amount of sagging).
(b) It is also noted that (i) the upper range limit depends on a particular application (acceptacle alginment accuracy, stress, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited upper range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and that (iv) it has been held that"A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this regard, the Castagna – Hengelmolen combination considers the degree of sagging/deflection a result-effective parameter (which impacts alignment accuracy).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the Castagna – Hengelmolen combination does not limit the distance d to any particular value, but prefers shorter distances in order to mitigate the effect of fiber sagging/deflection and its impact on alignment accuracy. The Castagna – Hengelmolen combination considers that optical fiber ribbons and corresponding ferrules may have sizes on the order of 1 cm (para. 0055 and 0056 of Hengelmolen). Selection of a workable range of the distance d would be well within ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagna in view of Hengelmolen, and further in view of Budd et al (US 2011/0026882 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, while the Castagna – Hengelmolen combination considers the optical waveguides implemented as an optical fiber array/ribbon, Budd discloses an optical ferrule 68 receiving an array of optical waveguides that can be either a fiber ribbon cable 14 (Fig. 5; para. 0018 and 0025) or a waveguide ribbon cable 72 (Fig. 7; para. 0029), the latter comprising multiple planar waveguides 70 disposed on a substrate 60 (para. 0028 – 0031). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical waveguides in Castagna can alternatively be implemented as a waveguide ribbon cable, as a suitable/workable design choice that is well known in the art and expressly taught by Budd.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0234126 A1
US 2014/0286607 A1
US 5,625,730
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights