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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the same” should read “a same”. 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 8 – 13 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arao et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 20220019025 A1).
In Re claim 8, ‘025 teaches an optical ferrule assembly configured to be used in an optical connector and comprising: an optical ferrule (3); an optical fiber retainer (41 and 42); and a plurality of polarization maintaining optical fibers (par. 0070), each of the polarization maintaining optical fibers comprising a core (21) surrounded by a cladding (22 around 21, fig. 3) surrounded by a buffer (23) and attached at a location spaced apart from a first fiber end of the polarization maintaining optical fiber to the optical fiber retainer (fig. 6A), the optical fiber retainer applying a pressure (par. 0079) to each of the polarization maintaining optical fibers at the location, such that the cladding of the polarization maintaining optical fiber is prevented from moving within the retainer (par. 0070).
In Re claim 9, Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the assembly, and therefore is of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Thus a prior art product which possesses the claimed product characteristics can anticipate or render obvious the claim subject matter regardless of the manner in which it is fabricated. A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the status is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown and Saffer, 173 USPQ 685 and 688; In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 147.
In Re claims 10, 11, ‘025 teaches that the fibers are aligned thus same input and output polarizations (par. 0079).
In Re claims 12 and 13, ‘025 teaches a polarization axis as claimed (pars. 0072, 0070).
In Re claim 16, ‘025 teaches an optical ferrule assembly configured to be used in an optical connector and comprising: an optical ferrule (3); an optical fiber retainer (41 and 42); and a plurality of polarization maintaining optical fibers, each of the polarization maintaining optical fibers comprising a core (21) surrounded by a cladding (22 around 21) surrounded by a buffer (23) and attached at a location spaced apart from a first fiber end of the polarization maintaining optical fiber to the optical fiber retainer (fig. 6A), the optical fiber retainer configured to securely hold each of the polarization maintaining optical fibers at the location such that the cladding of the polarization maintaining optical fiber is prevented from moving within the retainer (pars. 0070, 0079, 0080), the first fiber end permanently attached to the optical ferrule; wherein injecting a light with a same first polarization into each of the polarization maintaining optical fibers results in output beams from each polarization maintaining optical fiber, each output beam having a same second polarization (since the fibers are PMF and they are aligned they will maintain polarization from first to second, wherein both first and second can be the same polarization).
In Re claims 17 and 18, ‘025 teaches a polarization axis as claimed (pars. 0072, 0070).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 – 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haase et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2018/0275355 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘355 teaches an optical ferrule assembly configured to be used in an optical connector and comprising: an optical ferrule (120, 2110); an optical fiber retainer (130, 2130); and a plurality of optical fibers, each of the optical fibers comprising a core (waveguide) surrounded by a cladding (2309) surrounded by a buffer (2307), the buffer stripped at a location spaced apart from a fiber end of the optical fiber to form a stripped section (fig. 23) exposing the cladding and disposed between first and second unstripped (unstripped of buffer 2307) sections of the optical fiber, the first unstripped section extending from the stripped section toward the fiber end of the optical fiber (figs. 21 and 23), the fiber end permanently attached to the optical ferrule, the exposed cladding in the stripped section permanently attached to the optical fiber retainer (fig. 21).
‘355 is silent to the optical fibers being polarization maintaining optical fibers.
However, it is well known in the art that polarization maintaining optical fibers allow for greater stability of optical signals and better quality of optical signals that conventional optical fibers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polarization maintaining optical fibers as the fibers of ‘355 so as to allow for greater stability of optical signals and better quality of optical signals as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 2, Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the assembly, and therefore is of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Thus a prior art product which possesses the claimed product characteristics can anticipate or render obvious the claim subject matter regardless of the manner in which it is fabricated. A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the status is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown and Saffer, 173 USPQ 685 and 688; In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 147.
In Re claim 6, ‘355 teaches a housing as claimed (2610, 2620).
In Re claim 7, ‘355 teaches such an attachment (figs. 4c, 26).
In Re claim 8, ‘355 teaches an optical ferrule assembly configured to be used in an optical connector and comprising: an optical ferrule (1191); an optical fiber retainer (1100, 1200); and a plurality of optical fibers (1202), each of the optical fibers comprising a core (waveguide) surrounded by a cladding (cladding par. 0102) surrounded by a buffer (coating par. 0102) and attached at a location spaced apart from a first fiber end of the optical fiber to the optical fiber retainer (fig. 11B), the optical fiber retainer applying a pressure (clamp, par. 0103) to each of the optical fibers at the location, such that the cladding of the optical fiber is prevented from moving within the retainer.
‘355 is silent to the optical fibers being polarization maintaining optical fibers.
However, it is well known in the art that polarization maintaining optical fibers allow for greater stability of optical signals and better quality of optical signals that conventional optical fibers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polarization maintaining optical fibers as the fibers of ‘355 so as to allow for greater stability of optical signals and better quality of optical signals as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claims 14 and 15, ‘355 teaches a housing as claimed (419).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arao et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 20220019025 A1).
‘025 is silent to a housing as claimed. However, it is well known in the art to house jigs such as 41 and 42 in a housing that uses platforms to apply pressure from the top and bottom of the jigs to apply just the right amount of pressure without damaging optical fibers.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use platforms, that form the housing, to apply precise pressure to the jigs so as to ensure no damage to the optical fibers as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haase et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2018/0275355 A1) in view of Arao et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 20220019025 A1).
‘355 is silent to a polarization axis with respect to the retainer as claimed.
‘025 teaches aligning polarization maintaining fibers (par. 0070) as claimed (par. 0079 - 0080).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align the fiber of ‘355 as taught by ‘025 so as to allow for the fibers to be used in sensing applications or high powered laser applications requiring multiple identical beams of light to achieve high power as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights