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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 September 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 04 September 2024 have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 refers to “the through hole” in Line 2. Claim 1, from which Claim 2 depends, describes “a plurality of through holes” in Lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the through hole of Claim 2 is intended to reference any of the through holes described by Claim 1 or some other through hole, rendering the Claim indefinite.
Claims 3-4 depend from Claim 2 and fail to clarify the reference to “the through hole.”
For examination purposes, “the through hole” of Claim 2 shall be considered to refer to any one of the “plurality of through holes” describe by Claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0158444 to Imada et al. (“US1”).
US1 describes a cylindrical multi-fiber ferrule (14) having a cylindrical shape, wherein a plurality of through holes are formed on a same circle centered on a central axis of the cylindrical shape (see Fig 3), each of the through holes being configured to hold a single-core optical fiber (39), and one ferrule tip end portion (49) on the central axis has a convex spherical shape (see Fig 7 and [0035]-[0036]).
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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, US1 does not describe the ferrule having the claimed dimensions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the ferrule of US1 having the claimed dimensions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for desired positioning and/or transmission characteristics for light input/output from the fibers.
Regarding Claim 4, US1 describes a distance from the central axis of the cylindrical multi-fiber ferrule to a central axis of the through hole as 250 mm or less (see [0035]).
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent No. 5,300,000 to Pitassi et al. (“US2”) in view of US1.
Regarding Claim 1, US2 describes a cylindrical multi-fiber ferrule (11, 12) having a cylindrical shape, wherein a plurality of through holes are formed on a same circle centered on a central axis of the cylindrical shape (see Fig 2), each of the through holes being configured to hold a single-core optical fiber (13), and one ferrule tip end portion (16/22, 17/21) on the central axis has a convex shape (see Fig 3 and Col 2 Lns 51-66). US2 does not describe the ferrule tip end portion on the central axis having a convex spherical shape.
US1 describes a cylindrical multi-fiber ferrule as set forth in Claim 1 (see above herein).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ferrule and fiber tip configuration of US1 in the ferrule of US2. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for low cost of manufacture and low optical losses (see US1 at [0010]-[0011], [0013], [0019], [0083], [0109]).
Regarding Claim 5, US2 describes a plurality of similar cylindrical multi-fiber ferrules arranged facing each other (see Figs 1, 4), and the ferrule tip end portions of two of the cylindrical multi-fiber ferrules arranged to face each other are butted against each other (see Figs 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 6, US2 describes the through holes of the two cylindrical multi-fiber ferrules arranged to face each other hold respective single-core optical fibers (see Figs 1-3), and a gap between end surfaces of the single-core optical fibers held by the respective cylindrical multi-fiber ferrules is 22 mm or less (see Fig 3 and Col 2 Ln 51-Col 3 Ln 12).
Regarding Claim 7, neither US2 nor US1 describe the ferrule having the claimed dimensions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the ferrule of the obvious invention in view of US2 and US1 having the claimed dimensions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for desired positioning and/or transmission characteristics for light input/output from the fibers.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes various multi-fiber ferrule configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights