DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on August 28, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
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
The original drawings (fourteen (14) pages) were received on August 28, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the typo “ferule” should read “ferrule” as a term of art in fiber optics. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuzawa et al. US 2003/0026540 A1.
Fukuzawa et al. US 2003/0026540 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-2, 5, 6, 8-10; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0064] – [0103]; Claims) a device for optical transmittance and reflection (see embodiments in Figs. 1-2, 5, 6, 8-10; these device(s) are capable of both transmitting and reflecting optical signal(s) based on the filter feature), the device comprising: a housing defining an interior volume (outer housing shown in Figs. 1, 6, 8-10, e.g.); a first lens 21 disposed within the interior volume and configured to receive optical communication signals from a first fiber 11 (on left in Figs.); a second lens 22 disposed within the interior volume (on right in Figs.), wherein the second lens is configured to pass filtered optical communication signals to a second fiber 12; and a filter 50 / 150 / 52 disposed within the interior volume between the first lens and the second lens, wherein the first lens is configured to expand the optical communication signals coming from the first fiber to cause the optical communication signals to travel in a uniform pattern through the filter (beam expansion shown in Fig. 5, the beam is also uniform at the filter 50 in Fig. 5), wherein the filter is configured to allocate the optical communication signals to form return optical communication signals and the filtered optical communication signals, wherein the return optical communication signals are reflected back for evaluation, and wherein the second lens is configured to redirect the filtered optical communication signals into the second fiber (the transmitted signals (by the filter) pass to the opposing fiber; the reflected signals (by the filter) return and can be evaluated (paras [0042], [0043], [0066], [0069]; see also para [0107] with lenses 522 / 523 and reflected light), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of sole pending independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, there is at least some free space shown between internal optical elements (lens, filter, 2nd lens) in the Figs.
Regarding claims 3-4, the device of claim 1 can be installed within a system (intended use) and there is no structure imputed to claim 3 that distinguishes from Fukuzawa, and the device can be permanent within a system.
Regarding claim 5, the filter can depend on wavelength, thus the first signal is within a range of wavelengths, which meets all structure.
Regarding claim 6, the device of claim 1 and claim 5 can be utilized with customer networks (intended use) and there is no structure imputed to claim 6 that distinguishes from Fukuzawa, and the networks can use the selected wavelength(s).
Regarding claim 8, the filter can be “connected” (either mechanically and/or optically) to the first lens, see Figs. 6 and 8-10.
Regarding claim 9, the filter can be placed on a glass base (para [0094]), or the like, which is between the filter and the 1st lens, which meets the structure of “substrate.”
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the ends of the lenses can be flat (example embodiment Figs. 6, 8, and 9) or angled (non-flat) in Fig. 10. Also note that in Fig. 12, angles 532a / 533a are shown on the lenses (the claims do not say which end of the lens, “angled surface” is all that is claimed).
Regarding claim 12, at least part of the curving angle is at 8 degrees (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 14, the feature 60 of Fig. 6 can be labeled a “fixer tube” in the broadest reasonable interpretation of such structure.
Regarding claims 19-20, both lenses can be gradient index (para [0007], [0069]).
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 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 7, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa et al. US 2003/0026540 A1, based on sole independent claim 1, to Fukuzawa US ‘540 standing alone.
Regarding base independent claim 1, Fukuzawa et al. US 2003/0026540 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-2, 5, 6, 8-10; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0064] – [0103]; Claims) a device for optical transmittance and reflection (see embodiments in Figs. 1-2, 5, 6, 8-10; these device(s) are capable of both transmitting and reflecting optical signal(s) based on the filter feature), the device comprising: a housing defining an interior volume (outer housing shown in Figs. 1, 6, 8-10, e.g.); a first lens 21 disposed within the interior volume and configured to receive optical communication signals from a first fiber 11 (on left in Figs.); a second lens 22 disposed within the interior volume (on right in Figs.), wherein the second lens is configured to pass filtered optical communication signals to a second fiber 12; and a filter 50 / 150 / 52 disposed within the interior volume between the first lens and the second lens, wherein the first lens is configured to expand the optical communication signals coming from the first fiber to cause the optical communication signals to travel in a uniform pattern through the filter (beam expansion shown in Fig. 5, the beam is also uniform at the filter 50 in Fig. 5), wherein the filter is configured to allocate the optical communication signals to form return optical communication signals and the filtered optical communication signals, wherein the return optical communication signals are reflected back for evaluation, and wherein the second lens is configured to redirect the filtered optical communication signals into the second fiber (the transmitted signals (by the filter) pass to the opposing fiber; the reflected signals (by the filter) return and can be evaluated (paras [0042], [0043], [0066], [0069]; see also para [0107] with lenses 522 / 523 and reflected light).
Regarding further dependent claims 7, 13, and 15-18, there is no express and exact recitation of a single embodiment that employs all such features in Fukuzawa (90% for filtered / 10% or less for reflected; removable attachment of the 1st / 2nd fibers; additional first fixture for placement and a ferrule; or having a plurality of optical fibers at the input and output). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as those enumerated by the dependent claims, for design choice of transmittance to be “high” such as 90% (for claim 7), for fiber attachment and durability (for claims 13 and 15-16), and to add extra optical capacity (for claims 17-18), because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Fukuzawa to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (improvements in attachment, signals transmittance percentages, to increase capacity with multiple input fibers and multiple output fibers) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signal propagation and the resultant transmittance and reflectance of the connected design. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with an optical fiber / lens / filter device such as in Fukuzawa. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is clearly and fully anticipated by Fukuzawa as discussed prior to this section (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Fukuzawa to obtain the invention as specified in dependent claims 7, 13, and 13-18. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is merely an Examiner’s comment / suggestion regarding the inventive concept (gist) of the current application. The feature apparent that may be lacking from the closest prior art found in the current record (note Applicant’s Figs. 3-7, 12) is that the “return optical communications signals” 138 (from the filter 142) that are reflected back for evaluation are reflected back to the first fiber itself (118). None of the closest prior art teaches such an exact configuration where the “reflected back” signals 138 are evaluated by/through the first fiber. Conversely, the prior art uses a different / second optical fiber for the reflected-back signal. Therefore, Applicant may consider these comments in drafting a claim that patentably distinguishes from Fukuzawa US ‘540 above (and other prior art such as Li US ‘527 and Uschitsky US ‘465). Such an overall combination of features as a whole and as arranged is not found within the current prior art of record, and would not have been an obvious modification thereto (based on the reflected-back signals being used for evaluation (and to the 1st fiber)).
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B-G, which pertain to the state of the art of optical communications device that use input fiber(s), 1st and 2nd opposing optical lenses, output fiber(s), and in particular with an intervening filtering element between the lenses, in order to transmit some light and reflect some light.
Applicant’s attention is drawn to section (13) above in “Allowable Subject Matter.”
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 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights