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, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellekens et al (US 2007/0160339 A1) in view of Beri et al (US 2021/0278594 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Bellekens discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 5; para. 0038 – 0048) a flexible substrate optical fiber splitter assembly, comprising (with reference to Fig. 1):
an optical fiber bundle or ribbon 12a comprising a plurality N of optical fibers (“in-going fibres 12a” at para. 0038), wherein a first optical fiber (one of 12b) of the plurality N of optical fibers 12a is separated (by the first splitter 10) from remaining N-1 optical fibers of the optical fiber bundle or ribbon 12b;
a 1xM splitter 10 comprising M optical fibers, and
an input (of the following splitter 10) coupled to the first optical fiber; and
a flexible substrate 16 (“In FIG. 1a the optical component assembly is arranged on a flexible laminate sheet 16” at para. 0038),
wherein one or more of the N optical fibers, the first optical fiber, the N-1 optical fibers, and M optical fibers are routed to result in a predetermined maximum bending loss (e.g., “the fibre(s) is/are fed into the envelope is of sufficient shape and size to accommodate the minimum bend radius of the overlying fibre(s)” at para. 0023).
It is noted that if the fibers are not bent too tightly (as a radius smaller than the minimum bend radius), the bending loss does not exceed a (predetermined) maximum bending loss. It is noted that the term “predetermined” is not quantified and is dependent on a particular application (loss budget).
While Bellekens illustrates, by way of example but not limitation, the split fibers 12b are disposed fairly close to one another, Beri discloses (Figs. 33 and 34; para. 0136 and 0137) a flexible substrate optical fiber splitter assembly, comprising:
an input optical fiber(s) 914, wherein a first optical fiber (only of 916) is separated from remaining N-1 optical fibers (the other 916);
a splitter 910 comprising M optical fibers, and an input coupled to the first optical fiber; and
a flexible substrate 904 (expressly taught for substrate 802 in Fig. 33; “The manager 800 includes a flexible substrate 802 in the form of a flexible envelope or sleeve” at para. 0136).
Beri illustrates both a layout (Fig. 33) similar to that in Fig. 1 of Bellekens and a layout (Fig. 34) where the split fibers 916 are spread out and routed to different portions/regions of the flexible substrate 904, and wherein:
a first length of the optical fiber bundle or ribbon comprising the plurality N of optical fibers (corresponding to the input fiber 914) is routed to a first (right) portion of the flexible substrate 904;
a second length of the remaining N-1 optical fibers (lower 3 fibers 916 after the splitter 910) is routed and attached to a second (central) portion of the flexible substrate 904;
a third length of the first optical fiber (the uppermost fiber 916 after the splitter 910) is routed to a third (left) portion of the flexible substrate 904;
the 1xM splitter 910 is attached to a fourth (upper) portion of the flexible substrate 904; and
each of the M optical fibers of the 1xM splitter are routed and attached to corresponding predetermined M portions of the flexible substrate;
wherein one or more of the N optical fibers, the first optical fiber, the N-1 optical fibers, and M optical fibers are routed to result in a predetermined maximum bending loss (“optical fibers are bent along a curve defined by a minimum bend radius of the optical fibers” at para. 0015).
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 flexible substrate optical fiber splitter assembly of Bellekens can be arranged on the flexible substrate according to a “spatially distributed” layout, such as that illustrated by Beri that fully utilizes an area available on the flexible substrate.
The Bellekens – Beri combination considers that all fibers and the 1xM splitter are attached to the flexible substrate, e.g., by an adhesive tape (denoted as 36 in Fig. 5 of Bellekens; para. 0048).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Bellekens – Beri combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 4, the Bellekens – Beri combination does not place a particular requirement for attaching the optical fibers and considers that at least a bottom portion of the flexible substrate does not include adhesive to allow at least a portion of the N optical fibers, the first optical fiber, the N-1 optical fibers, and the M optical fibers to move freely near the bottom portion of the flexible substrate (“In certain examples, the module housing 904 does not have a dedicated region for fixating fiber optic splice protectors to the module housing. Instead, the fiber optic splices are positioned free-floating along the optical fiber loops” at para. 0137 of Beri).
Regarding claim 6, the Bellekens – Beri combination considers (Figs. 31 and 32 of Beri; para. 0134) that the flexible substrate can be configured as a flexible substrate cylinder.
Regarding claim 10, selecting a proper (predetermined) maximum bending loss is well with ordinary skill in the art and also depends on a particular application (e.g., loss budget). It has been held by courts 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). The Bellekens – Beri combination regards a bend radius as a result-effective parameter (determines bending loss).
Regarding claim 11, the Bellekens – Beri combination considers that the flexible substrate can be a thickness around 250 microns (para. 0040). In particular, “Aspects of the present disclosure relate to a fiber manager and/or substrate and/or organizer and/or fiber holder having a thickness less than or equal to 1000 microns, or 900 microns, or 800 microns, or 700 microns, or 600 microns, or 500 microns, or 400 microns, or 300 microns” (para. 0045 of Beri). Therefore, the Bellekens – Beri combination considers a range that at least overlaps with the recited range and, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It is also notes that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (a particular selection of materials for the flexible substrate and optical fibers); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited 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.
Regarding claim 13, the Bellekens – Beri combination considers (Fig. 34 of Beri) that the optical fiber bundle or ribbon, the remaining N-1 optical fibers, and the M optical fibers each enter or exit from a first (right) end of the flexible substrate 904 (para. 0137 of Beri).
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of Bellekens and Beri combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited step limitations of a corresponding method of assembling the contemplated flexible substrate optical fiber splitter, as detailed above for claim 1. Specifically, the Bellekens – Beri combination considers a method of assembling a flexible substrate optical fiber splitter, comprising:
Separating (by a first splitter 10 in Bellekens), from an optical fiber bundle or ribbon comprising a plurality N of optical fibers 12a, a first optical fiber to result in a first branch comprising the first optical fiber and a second branch comprising remaining N-1 optical fibers of the optical fiber bundle or ribbon 12a;
Splicing (the bottommost splice 922 in Fig. 34 of Beri; para. 0137), to the first optical fiber, an input fiber of a 1xM splitter comprising M optical fibers as outputs;
routing and/or attaching, to at least a portion of a flexible substrate, at least a portion of the remaining N-1 optical fibers, the 1xM splitter, and the M optical fibers such that each enter or exit from a first end (right end in Fig. 34 of Beri) of the flexible substrate 904, wherein:
a first length of the optical fiber bundle or ribbon comprising the plurality N of optical fibers is routed to a first (right) portion of the flexible substrate 904;
a second length of the remaining N-1 optical fibers is routed and attached (by adhesive tape) to a second (central) portion of the flexible substrate 904;
a third length of the first optical fiber is routed to a third (right) portion of the flexible substrate;
the 1xM splitter is attached (by adhesive tape) to a fourth (upper) portion of the flexible substrate; and
each of the M optical fibers of the 1xM splitter are routed and attached to corresponding predetermined M portions of the flexible substrate 904.
Regarding claim 16, the Bellekens – Beri combination considers that each of the N optical fibers, the first optical fiber, the N-1 optical fibers, and the M optical fibers are routed to result in a predetermined maximum bending loss (para. 0023 of Bellekens; para. 0015 of Beri).
Claims 2, 5, 7 – 9, 12, 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellekens in view of Beri, and further in view of Bryon et al (US 2022/0317383 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, while the Bellekens – Beri combination does not explicitly illustrate a housing for the contemplated flexible substrate optical fiber splitter assembly, Bryon discloses (Figs. 4 – 8 and 16; Abstract; para. 0062 – 0069 and 0085 – 0093) a flexible substrate optical fiber splitter assembly comprising a splitter separating a first fiber 20 from a fiber ribbon 68 (as shown in Fig. 8) and further comprising a flexible substrate 10c. The flexible substrate optical fiber splitter assembly is connectorized (by 66,70 in Fig. 8), folded/rolled-up, and disposed in a housing 136 (as shown in Fig. 16) having penetrations for entry/exit.
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 flexible substrate optical fiber splitter assembly of the Bellekens – Beri combination can be connectorized and disposed in a housing, as illustrated by Bryon, for mechanical protection.
The Bellekens – Beri – Bryon combination considers that at least a part of one or more of the first portion of the flexible substrate, the second portion of the flexible substrate, and the M portions of the flexible substrate are configured to align with corresponding furcations of a housing.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Bellekens – Beri – Bryon combination considers that least a portion of the splitter, the N optical fibers, the first optical fiber, the N-1 optical fibers, and the M optical fibers are sandwiched between two flexible substrates and thereby be sealed (between two flexible substrates 12 and 16 in Fig. 2 of Bryon; para. 0049 and 0050).
Regarding claims 7 – 9 and 18 – 20, the Bellekens – Beri – Bryon combination does not limit the housing to any particular shape and renders obvious that the flexible assembly, if rolled-up in a cylinder, may be housed within a cylindrical housing that approximates the outer shape of the flexible assembly to minimize the space/volume taken up by the housing. The use of a flange/cap with connectors/adapters would also be within ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that connectorized cylindrical housings for protecting cylindrical optical components disposed therein are well known in the art. They would be an obvious choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide mechanical protection to a fragile flexible assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Bellekens – Beri – Bryon combination considers that the flexible substrate can comprise Mylar (para. 0042, 0043, and 0049 of Bryon).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0016952 A1
US 4,648,168
US 2022/0276456 A1
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