DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on August 13, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 1 as the sole (method) independent.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 13, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
3. The original drawings (thirty-four (34) pages) were received on August 13, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raguin et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,587,618 B2, and further in view of Bloom US 2001/0007199 A1.
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, Raguin et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,587,618 B2 (ABS; Figs. 1, 1C, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14; corresponding text, in particular column 6, line 58 through column 18, line 14; Claims) discloses a method for constructing a fiber array (see Abstract, Fig. 1C), the method comprising: c) positioning a substrate at a position of a plurality of positions (further, stages of fixture 1225 holding the Iens array substrate are controlled by the same computer, see column 16, lines 48-49); d) aligning the output end of the optical fiber to the substrate (the output end of the fiber 11 is held in a ferrule 12 which has a from surface substantially planar and smooth with the output end of fiber 11. Each one of the fiber elements 15 is aligned, see column 7, lines 25-28); c) coupling the output end of the optical fiber to a location of a plurality of locations on the substrate (each one of the fiber elements 15 is aligned and attached to a different one of the lenses of the array 10, see column 7, lines 27-29); f) detaching the optical fiber from the fiber spool to form an input end of the optical fiber (an array of fibers 11 is provided to the lenses of array 10. In such example, a connector 44, such as an MTP/8 connector, is attached to a ribbon cable 46 to the input end of each fiber, see column 9, lines 59-62); and repeating steps c) through g) for each of the plurality of locations on the substrate (the alignment process described above is then repeated. Preferably, the fibers are attached in order of the lens row by row from the bottom to the top of the array. For example, the array 10 may be a 16 x 20 lens array requiring alignment and attachment of 320 fibers, see column 15, lines 31-36); and determining that the substrate has been positioned at each of the plurality of positions (the optical signal will propagate from the output end toward the input end of the optical fiber element, and a fraction of the optical signal will be coupled by optics to the optical power detector, which in the case of a properly aligned fiber will detect a relatively high amount of reflected power, see column 11, lines 26-31).
Raguin US ‘618 fails to expressly and exactly teach the method steps of a) selecting a fiber spool among one or more fiber spools; and b) processing a portion of the fiber spool to form an optical fiber having an output end; and finally the step g) for marking the optical fiber. Therefore, Raguin US ‘618 cannot serve for literal anticipation in a rejection under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
However, the close prior art of Bloom US 2001/0007199 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 16-21, 27, 29, 30; corresponding text; Claims) an apparatus and manufacturing method for optical fiber(s) in which optical fibers selection (from a fiber spool among one or more fiber spools (the optical fibers 18 are wrapped on spools 24 (shown as cylinders at far left, reference numeral 24 denotes one or more spools, see paragraph [0075])); processing a portion of the fiber spool to form an optical fiber having an output end (one or more sealed chamber ports 26 may advantageously be used to secure and/or position the end and/or a portion of one or more optical fibers 18 stored via an inventory of optical fiber spools 24, see paragraph [0076]): and marking the optical fiber (note Fig. 27, as an illustration of a fiber optic device with leads secured, and ready for any further testing, packaging, labeling, and/or shipping, see paragraph [0161]). Therefore, Bloom US ‘199 teaches a general process of construction optical fiber devices / arrays / apparatus in which selectable spools are incorporated, by using marking of the optical fiber(s) and processing for an output end of the fiber(s).
Since Raguin and Bloom are both from the same field of endeavor, the purposes (additional method steps) disclosed by Bloom would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Raguin.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of the missing method steps, as found in Bloom, into the base design of method for constructing (manufacturing step/process) of an optical fiber array as in Raguin, as an obvious design choice and common skill for selecting a fiber spool, marking (making marks on/with) the fiber, and processing a portion of the fiber spool to form an optical fiber having an output end, as similar output fiber array(s) are found in Raguin itself. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application, to recognize base features of Raguin, with the optical fiber processing system of Bloom, for the purpose of improving the fabrication process of Raguin by providing optical fibers from one of a plurality of fiber spools and labeling each fiber in the array of fibers of Raguin. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such overall method of design with the added steps as employed by Bloom’s manufacturing process. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent method claim 1 is found obvious over Raguin and further in view of Bloom (henceforth “COMBO”). Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale found in the Written Opinion from corresponding PCT US ‘156.
Regarding further dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 14-18, and 20, all such dependent claims are found obvious over COMBO, for the reasons outlined in the Written Opinion, and based on the tenets of KSR. The overall combination of features found in those dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 14-18, and 20 would have been recognized as obviously implementations of the COMBO hypothetical base method of independent claim 1, with the teaching of such dependencies also outlined in either Raguin and/or Bloom themselves. Note KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). See also section (2) in Box No. V of PCT US ‘156.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raguin et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,587,618 B2 and further in view of Bloom US 2001/0007199 A1 (“COMBO”), based on independent claim 1, and further in view of Johnson III et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,676,763 B2.
Regarding base independent method of constructing, COMBO makes obvious such features as a whole and as arranged. Note the full rejection above in section (7).
Regarding further dependent claim 4, COMBO does not expressly and exactly teach such features, in that transporting to a clean area, removing a coating, and cleaning (a/the fiber) occurs.
Johnson III et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,676,763 B2 teaches (ABS; column 5, lines 49-52; column 5, line 67 through column 6, line 2; column 6, lines 5-10; Claims) such missing features of transporting to a clean area, removing a coating from the fiber, and cleaning. The removal of unwanted debris and residual material is conducted.
Since COMBO and Johnson are all from the same field of endeavor, the purposes (additional method steps) disclosed by Johnson would have been recognized in the pertinent art of COMBO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of the missing method steps, as found in Johnson, for the transporting to a clean area, removing a coating from the fiber, and cleaning, into the base design of method for constructing (manufacturing step/process) of an optical fiber array as in COMBO, as an obvious design choice and common skill for those features, to remove unwanted debris and residual material from / for fabrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application, to recognize base features of COMBO, with the optical fiber processing system of Johnson, for the purpose of improving the fabrication process of COMBO by cleaning the fiber at a removed coating area. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such overall method of design with the added steps as employed by Johnson’s manufacturing process. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent method claim 4 is found obvious over COMBO and further in view of Johnson. Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale found in the Written Opinion from corresponding PCT US ‘156 (to claim 4).
9. Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raguin et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,587,618 B2 and further in view of Bloom US 2001/0007199 A1 (“COMBO”), based on independent claim 1, and further in view of Langseth et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,500,158 B2.
Regarding base independent method of constructing, COMBO makes obvious such features as a whole and as arranged. Note the full rejection above in section (7).
Regarding further dependent claims 12 and 19, COMBO does not expressly and exactly teach such features, in that the marking and labeling features are outlined on/with the optical fiber during transportation and substrate application(s), for indexed positions, etc.
Langseth et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,500,158 B2 teaches (ABS; column 9, lines 56-60; Claims) such missing features of marking / labeling / positional indexes. The improvement of Langseth is in locating and indexing features based on such marking and labeling steps (of optical fiber(s)).
Since COMBO and Langseth are all from the same field of endeavor, the purposes (additional method steps) disclosed by Langseth would have been recognized in the pertinent art of COMBO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of the missing method steps, as found in Langseth, for the locating and indexing features based on such marking and labeling steps (of a fiber(s)), into the base design of method for constructing (manufacturing step/process) of an optical fiber array as in COMBO, as an obvious design choice and common skill for those features, to allow indexing for future identification of fibers in a larger array. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application, to recognize base features of COMBO, with the optical fiber indexing and labeling system of Langseth, for the purpose of improving the fabrication process of COMBO by labeling steps. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such overall method of design with the added steps as employed by Langseth’s manufacturing process. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent method claims 12 and 19 are found obvious over COMBO and further in view of Langseth. Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale found in the Written Opinion from corresponding PCT US ‘156 (to claims 12 and 19).
10. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raguin et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,587,618 B2 and further in view of Bloom US 2001/0007199 A1 (“COMBO”), based on independent claim 1, and further in view of Guenther et al. US 2023/022157 A1.
Regarding base independent method of constructing, COMBO makes obvious such features as a whole and as arranged. Note the full rejection above in section (7).
Regarding further dependent claim 13, COMBO does not expressly and exactly teach such features, in that the laser welding (attachment) features are found on a plurality of locations on a substrate.
Guenther et al. US 2023/022157 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs.; paragraph [0016]; Claims) such missing features of welding features, with gluing and soldering type steps for attachment to a plurality of positions on a substrate. The improvement of Guenther is in how the attachment occurs, with reheated usage of the glue/solder (for welding).
Since COMBO and Guenther are all from the same field of endeavor, the purposes (additional method steps) disclosed by Guenther would have been recognized in the pertinent art of COMBO.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of the missing method steps, as found in Guenther, for the attachment / welding of the fibers to multiple positions on the substrate, into the base design of method for constructing (manufacturing step/process) of an optical fiber array as in COMBO, as an obvious design choice and common skill for those features, to allow for improvement welding attachment and durability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application, to recognize base features of COMBO, with the optical fiber indexing and labeling system of Guenther, for the purpose of improving the fabrication process of COMBO by welding. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such overall method of design with the added steps as employed by Guenther’s manufacturing process. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent method claim 13 is found obvious over COMBO and further in view of Guenther. Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale found in the Written Opinion from corresponding PCT US ‘156 (to claim 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. All such further dependent claim features (upon base indepedent method claim 1) are not found obvious and reasonably suggest by any prior art found in the current record. Applicant may cancel claims 6-10 and place them into independent method form.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A-F, which pertain to the state of the art of optical fiber method for using spools and aligned arrays of fibers.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights