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 .
Examiner Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of the action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or discussed by the examiner.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101173611 B1 (cited in the IDS), hereinafter D1 in view of KR 20020082259 A (cited in the IDS), hereinafter D2.
As to claim 1, D1 discloses a fiber optic transfer switch to reconfigure multiple ganged ports in parallel (abstract; Description; “optical fiber switch..among a plurality of optical fiber array blocks”; “accurate switching between a plurality of optical fiber array blocks”; “switching between the N:N channels”; Figs. 1-3 show switching between multiple optical fiber array blocks), the fiber optic transfer switch comprising: a pair of actuators (Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 show a moving actuator 800; Description: “a moving actuator 800 coupled to the first fixing jig 600”); a first set of optical fibers which is translatable along longitudinal and transverse directions by the pair of actuators ( Figs. 1 and 6; Description: “the first fixing jig 600 is moved in the +X direction”, “the input end optical fiber array block 100 is moved in the +Z direction”, “move the first fixing jig three-dimensionally”; D1 expressly teaches multi-axis movement of the input end optical fiber array block. This corresponds to longitudinal and transverse translation); and a second set of optical fibers and a third set of optical fibers that are fixed, spaced apart, and longitudinally opposing the first set of optical fibers (Figs. 1-3; Description: “main output end optical fiber array block 200”; “preliminary output end optical fiber array block 300”, “the preliminary output stage optical fiber array block 300…is fixed to the second fixing jig 700”, similarly, the main output block is part of the fixed output arrangement; D1 teaches two fixed output array blocks spaced relative to the movable input block. The reference does not use the exact language “longitudinally opposing”, but the arrangement of a movable input block facing fixed output blocks is disclosed),wherein the pair of actuators are constructed and adapted to alternately connect the first set of optical fibers to either (i) the second set of optical fibers or (ii) the third set of optical fibers (Fig. 2: input block connected to the main output block; Fig. 3: input block connected to the preliminary output block; Description: “the input end optical fiber array block 100 is basically connected to the main output end optical fiber array block 200”, “connected to the preliminary output stage optical fiber array block 300”).
D1 doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations such as “a pair of actuators” and “the pair of actuators constructed and adapted to alternately connect”.
As to the limitation of “pair of actuators”, D1 teaches three-dimensional movement of the input fiber bloc: movement in the +X axis and +Z axis and angular/fine adjustment (Figs. 1, 6, Description). Thus D1 already recognizes that precise optical switching requires motion in more than one degree of freedom. Further, multi-axis translation movement (naturally suggesting more than one actuator function). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such multi-axis motion can be implemented using: a single multi-axis actuator arrangement, or multiple actuators each responsible for a different direction of movement. Thus, adding a pair of actuators would be an obvious engineering choice to provide separate or coordinated movement along different axes for better control and repeatability.
Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), obviousness can be shown where a modification is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Here: D1 already teaches actuator-controlled multi-axis movement using two actuators instead of one is a predictable way to implement that same known function with finer control. This is not a new principle; it is just a known mechanism applied in a familiar way.
D1 emphasizes: accurate switching, fine alignment and minimizing optical loss. That objective gives a clear reason to use two actuators: one actuator can provide one degree of movement, another actuator can provide another degree of movement and together they can improve alignment precision when switching between opposing fiber arrays. This is especially consistent with the reference’s teaching that alignment must be adjusted when optical loss exceeds a threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 to use a pair of actuators because optical switching in fiber arrays is highly sensitive to misalignment, independent or coordinated motion improves repeatable alignment and multiple actuators are a routine and predictable design choice for multi-axis positioning.
As to the limitation of “the pair of actuators constructed and adapted to alternatively connect”, D1 already teaches alternate connection between two output blocks (Figs,. 1-3; Description). That is functionally the same as alternately connecting a first set of fibers to one of two opposing fixed sets. So the only remaining step is to give that switching function a pair of actuators that can move the first fiber set into selective alignment with either output set.
D2 from the same field of endeavor teaches a more general selective optical switching concept (abstract: “one Input port, output ports of N number” “selectively supply an optical signal transmitted through one optical fiber to one of optical fibers of N number” “by changing a rotating angle of a refractive plate to control an optical path”) which supports the proposition that switching among multiple outputs was known and expected. Thus adding a pair of actuators to alternate the movable fiber set among fixed output sets is an obvious way to implement that known routing function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical fiber switch of D1 to include a pair of actuators, and to configure the actuators to alternately connect a first set of optical fibers to either of two fixed opposing optical fiber sets, in view of D2. D1 already teaches actuator-controlled three-dimensional movement of an input fiber array block to selectively align with either a main output block or a preliminary output block, thereby switching optical connections between multiple fiber array blocks. D2 further teaches selective routing of an optical signal from one input to one of multiple outputs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a pair of actuators to provide the known multi-axis positioning and switching function with improved precision and controllability, yielding the predictable result of alternately aligning the movable fiber set with different fixed fiber sets. Such a modification would have been an obvious application of known optical switching and positioning elements according to their established functions, consistent with KSR and MPEP 2143.
As to claim 10, D1 teaches at least two fixed output blocks: main output block 200 and preliminary output block 300. This is consistent with the concept of additional fixed sets of optical fibers spaced apart and opposing the first set. D2further teaches switching one input to multiple outputs. Thus, the additional fixed sets would have been an obvious extension of the known multi-output switching architecture.
As to claim 11, D1 teaches alternating the connection between a main output block and a spare output block. D2 teaches selection among multiple output ports. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the switching concept to additional output sets, because selecting among more than two destinations is a straightforward and predictable extension of the known multi-output routing framework.
As to claim 12, D1 teaches a method comprising: (A) providing a fiber optic transfer switch comprising :a pair of actuators, being a first actuator and a second actuator; a first set of optical fibers which is translatable along longitudinal and transverse directions by the pair of actuators; and a second set of optical fibers and a third set of optical fibers that are fixed, spaced apart, and longitudinally opposing the first set of optical fibers, wherein the pair of actuators are constructed and adapted to alternately connect the first set of optical fibers to either (I) the second set of optical fibers or (ii) the third set of optical fibers (see rejection of claim 1); (B) the first actuator disconnecting the first set of optical fibers from the second set of optical fibers (D1 teaches moving the input fiber array block away from one output block and aligning it with another. Although it does not use the exact term, “disconnecting”, the functional equivalent is taught); and then (C) the second actuator moving the first set of optical fibers from transverse alignment with the second set of optical fibers to transverse alignment with the third set of optical fibers (D1 teaches three-dimensional movement of the input block, including lateral/axial repositioning and angle adjustment, to align with a selected output block. Further D2 reinforces the general concept of switching optical paths among multiple outputs); and then (D) connecting the first set of optical fibers and the second set of optical fibers by moving the first actuator parallel to an axis of the optical fibers (D1 teaches fine adjustment of the input block position to reduce optical loss and achieve alignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use actuator movement parallel to the fiber axis as part of the alignment process. The motivation is to provide a method for reliable reconfiguration between multiple fiber array blocks, reducing optical loss and allowing selective switching among available output arrays.
As to claim 13, D1 teaches movement of the input block in the X and Z directions and angular adjustment, which necessarily includes transverse movement relative to the longitudinal fiber axis. The claimed perpendicular movement is an obvious characterization of the known multi-axis alignment motion.
As to claim 14, the mass fiber switch portion is supported by the same teachings discussed for the rejection of claim 1. As to the recited “cross-connect reconfiguration batches,” “current workflow,” and “second workflow” language does not add a distinct structural limitation beyond the known switching hardware, but instead recites an intended use or operational context for the known switch.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the switch of D1, as supplemented by the selective multi-output routing of D2 in a system configured to transfer fiber pair connections between preconfigured optical cross-connects or workflows, because such use merely applies known optical switching elements to their established function of rerouting optical paths with predictable results, consistent with KSR and In re Keller.
Claim(s) 2-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 and further in view of Takeuchi et al., (hereinafter D3), US 2022/003935 A1 and Miller et al., (hereinafter D4), US 8,798,411.
As to claims 2 and 15, D1 teaches a movable first set of optical fibers in the form of an input end optical fiber array block 100, and fixed opposing sets in the form of a main output end optical fiber array block 200 and a preliminary output end optical fiber array block 300 (Abstract; Description; Figs. 1–3; Fig. 6]. D2 teaches selective routing of a single optical input to one of multiple outputs (Abstract).
However, D1 when modified by D2 doesn’t explicitly disclose the fiber optic transfer switch of claim 1, further comprising: a first plurality of connectors, a second plurality of connectors, and a third plurality of connectors, wherein the first plurality of connectors terminate the first set of optical fibers, the second plurality of connectors terminate the second set of optical fibers, and the third plurality of connectors terminate the third set of optical fibers, and wherein the pair of actuators are constructed and adapted to alternately connect the first set of optical fibers to either (i) the second set of optical fibers or (ii) the third set of optical fibers by alternately connecting the first plurality of connectors to either (a) the second plurality of connectors or (b) the third plurality of connectors.
D3 teaches plural connector-based optical systems and optical switching among multiple ports and components [Abstract; Figs. 1A–6; Figs. 7A–13]. D4 teaches connectorized fiber holders, connector plugs, and a movable carrier that couples a first set of optical fibers to a second set of optical fibers [Abstract; Fig. 1; Figs. 5A–6B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alternate switching of D1 using connector pluralities as recited in claim 2 because connectorized optical coupling is a predictable implementation of the known switching architecture, and the references collectively teach selective routing among multiple optical destinations.
As to claims 3 and 16, D1 when modified by D2, D3 and D4 does not explicitly disclose the connectors comprising expanded beam lensed connectors.
However, the examiner takes official notice that using expanded beam lens connectors are common and known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the known switching architecture using standard multi-fiber connector arrangements where appropriate, as connectorization is a predictable packaging choice in optical systems. The advantage of using expanded beam lens connectors in fiber optic transfer switch would be minimized sensitivity to contamination, zero physical contact, higher alignment tolerance and low maintenance.
As to claims 4, 5, 17 and 18, D1 when modified by D2, D3 and D4 does not explicitly disclose wherein each expanded beam lensed connector comprising an AR-coated lens array creating low insertion loss.
However, the examiner takes official notice that using AR coating on expanded beam lens connectors is common and known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the known switching architecture using standard multi-fiber connector arrangements where appropriate, as connectorization is a predictable packaging choice in optical systems. The advantage of using AR coated expanded beam lens connectors in fiber optic transfer switch would be minimized insertion loss, improved return loss, superior debris tolerance and zero physical wear and tear.
As to claims 6 and 19, D1 teaches MT/FVA-style fiber array switching [Description; Figs. 6–7], and D3 teaches connectorized optical switching with movable carriers and fiber holders [Abstract; Figs. 1; 5A–6B].
D1 when modified by D2, D3 and D4 does not explicitly disclose that the connectors comprise non-contact MT ferrule connectors.
However, the examiner takes official notice that using non-contact MT ferrule connectors are common and known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the known switching architecture using standard multi-fiber connector arrangements where appropriate, as connectorization is a predictable packaging choice in optical systems. The advantage of using non-contact MT ferrule connectors in fiber optic transfer switch would be elimination of wear and tear , high contamination resistance low mating force and consistent insertion loss.
As to claims 7 and 20, D1 teaches switching among multiple fiber array blocks [Abstract; Description; Figs. 1-3 AND 6]. D3 teaches multi-fiber and N*M optical switching systems with plural connector sets [Abstract; Figs. 1A-6; Figs. 7A-13]. D4 teaches connectorized fiber holders and movable carrier coupling [Abstract; Figs. 1, 5a-6b].
D1 when modified by D2, D3 and D4 does not explicitly disclose wherein each connector terminates at least 12 fibers.
However, the examiner takes official notice that connectors terminating fibers is a well-established concept in the fiber optics industry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the connector count per connector to accommodate at least 12 fibers in a high-density optical switching system, as increasing fiber count is a routine scaling choice. Consolidating 12 fibers into one connector would drastically reduce the physical space required on the front of the optical switch, provide faster development and upgrades and simplified cable management.
As to claim 8, D1 when modified by D2, D3 and D4, does not explicitly disclose wherein there are at least 4 connectors per set of optical fibers.
However, D1 and D2 teach switching among multiple optical destinations [D1, Abstract; Description; Figs. 2–3; Fig. 6; D2, Abstract]. D3 teaches plural connector groups and system-level optical switching among multiple ports and components [Abstract; Figs. 1A–6; Figs. 7A–13]. D4 teaches fiber holders and connector plugs coupled through a movable carrier [Abstract; Figs. 1; 5A–6B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to increase the number of connectors per fiber set to support multiple selectable optical paths, since the use of multiple connectors in a high-density optical system is a predictable design implementation. This would allow the switch to simultaneously send and receive data without risking signal reflection, ensuring high bandwidth and strict hardware separation between transmit and receive parts.
As to claim 9, D1 when modified by D2, D3 and D4 does not explicitly disclose that the actuators provide linear travel of about 25 mm and are electrically driven.
However, D1 teaches actuator-driven movement of a fiber array block in multiple directions [D1, Abstract; Description; Figs. 1–3; Fig. 6]. D4 expressly teaches a linear actuation mechanism including a motor and drive roller to translate an optical waveguide carrier [D4 Abstract; Fig. 1; Figs. 5A–6B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrically driven linear actuator to move the fiber switching element because the references teach the same general actuation function and the exact travel distance is an implementation detail selected to achieve proper alignment, exceptional precision and adaptive routing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)272-5560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights