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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 12/30/2024. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. CN202310838005.0, filed on 07/10/2023, has been filed in this matter.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN210536635U) in view of Arao (US 20240272374 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ding discloses:
A method for detecting a ferrule (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L9, ferrule 3) of optical fiber (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L10, optical fiber 1), … an optical fiber sleeve (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12, “The ferrule 3 is a glass sleeve”), an adhesive is cured between the optical fiber sleeve (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L20, fixing glue 2) and … the method comprises:
controlling a laser generator to emit a laser beam with a preset power (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L21, 532nm laser), wherein the laser beam is focused on an end face of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected and passes into the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”);
obtaining real-time brightness at one or more preset positions of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”), …
receiving the real-time brightness, and determining whether the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified based on the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L23-29, “When the optical fiber 1 is used in conjunction with an ordinary optical fiber jumper, the optical fiber jumper of the glass ferrule 3 serves as the receiving end. If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product”).
Ding discloses the above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… wherein the ferrule of optical fiber comprises a metal handle and …
… the metal handle, and
… wherein the one or more preset positions at least comprises a position at an adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, and the adhesive tail is a bonding position between an end of the metal handle and the optical fiber sleeve; and …
However, Arao, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL CONNECTOR), discloses:
… wherein the ferrule of optical fiber comprises a metal handle (Arao, FIG. 1, [0032], flange 130a, and [0029], “The ferrule is preferably made of a ceramic material or a metal material”) and …
… the metal handle (Arao, FIG. 1, [0032], flange 130a, and [0029], “The ferrule is preferably made of a ceramic material or a metal material”), and
… wherein the one or more preset positions at least comprises a position at an adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, and the adhesive tail is a bonding position between an end of the metal handle and the optical fiber sleeve (Arao, FIG. 1. Examiner notes that for the function of the ferrule, one of the preset point of issue where laser light would escape is inherently at the seam and point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding with the metal ferrule of Arao. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of metal ferrules as disclosed by Arao and how to use them to modify Ding. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known ferrule in a similar system.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 1, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein receiving the real-time brightness, and determining whether the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified based on the real-time brightness comprises:
presetting a brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”);
receiving the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”);
comparing the real-time brightness at each of the one or more preset positions with the brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”); and
if the real-time brightness at any one of the one or more preset positions being higher than the brightness threshold, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 2, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein if the real-time brightness at any one of the one or more preset positions is higher than the brightness threshold, after determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified, the method further comprises:
determining a reason why the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified based on at least one preset position of the one or more preset positions where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed); and
outputting a visual detection report (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L44, “The leaked light intensity is displayed on the display terminal”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein determining the reason why the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified based on the at least one preset position of the one or more preset positions comprises:
if the at least one preset position where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold is located at the adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified due to poor adhesive dispensing.
However, as previously noted, Examiner notes that for the function of the ferrule, one of the preset point of issue where laser light would escape is inherently at the seam and point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle. As such, if there is notable leaking at the point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle, that would inherently indicate an issue with the adhesive connecting the two, and as such would be obvious to PHOSITA in light of Ding and Arao.
Regarding Claim 5, Ding discloses:
A system for detecting the ferrule (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L9, ferrule 3) of optical fiber (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L10, optical fiber 1), … an optical fiber sleeve (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12, “The ferrule 3 is a glass sleeve”), adhesive is cured between the optical fiber sleeve (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L20, fixing glue 2) and … the system comprises:
a laser generating module configured to control a laser generator to emit a laser beam with a preset power (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L21, 532nm laser), wherein the laser beam is focused on an end face of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected and passes into the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”);
a brightness collecting module configured to obtain real-time brightness at one or more preset positions of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”), …
a defect determining module of the ferrule of optical fiber connected to the brightness collecting module, wherein the defect determining module of the ferrule of optical fiber is configured to receive the real-time brightness and determine whether the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified according to the real-time brightness brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L23-29, “When the optical fiber 1 is used in conjunction with an ordinary optical fiber jumper, the optical fiber jumper of the glass ferrule 3 serves as the receiving end. If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product”).
Ding discloses the above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… wherein the ferrule of optical fiber comprises a metal handle and …
… the metal handle, and
… wherein the one or more preset positions at least comprises a position at an adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, and the adhesive tail is a bonding position between an end of the metal handle and the optical fiber sleeve; and …
However, Arao, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL CONNECTOR), discloses:
… wherein the ferrule of optical fiber comprises a metal handle (Arao, FIG. 1, [0032], flange 130a, and [0029], “The ferrule is preferably made of a ceramic material or a metal material”) and …
… the metal handle (Arao, FIG. 1, [0032], flange 130a, and [0029], “The ferrule is preferably made of a ceramic material or a metal material”), and
… wherein the one or more preset positions at least comprises a position at an adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, and the adhesive tail is a bonding position between an end of the metal handle and the optical fiber sleeve (Arao, FIG. 1. Examiner notes that for the function of the ferrule, one of the preset point of issue where laser light would escape is inherently at the seam and point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding with the metal ferrule of Arao. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of metal ferrules as disclosed by Arao and how to use them to modify Ding. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known ferrule in a similar system.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 5, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein the defect determining module of the ferrule of optical fiber comprises:
a presetting unit configured to preset a brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”);
a receiving unit configured to receive the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”); and
a comparing unit configured to compare the real-time brightness with the brightness threshold, wherein if the real-time brightness at any one of the one or more preset positions is higher than the brightness threshold, the comparing unit determines that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 6, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein the system further comprises:
a determining module configured to determine a reason why the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified based on at least one preset position of the one or more preset positions where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold, after the comparing unit determines that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed); and
a detection report generating module configured to output a visual detection report (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L44, “The leaked light intensity is displayed on the display terminal”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the determining module is further configured to:
when the at least one preset position where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold is located at the adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, determine that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified due to poor adhesive dispensing.
However, as previously noted, Examiner notes that for the function of the ferrule, one of the preset point of issue where laser light would escape is inherently at the seam and point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle. As such, if there is notable leaking at the point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle, that would inherently indicate an issue with the adhesive connecting the two, and as such would be obvious to PHOSITA in light of Ding and Arao.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 1, and Ding further discloses:
A storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the storage medium, when the computer program is executed by a processor, the processor implements the method for detecting a ferrule of optical fiber according to claim 1 (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L 33-37, “The detection device further includes a light leakage signal processor provided outside the housing. The light leakage signal processor includes a signal reception processing module, a controller, and a display terminal. The signal reception processing module is used to receive and process the The signal sent by the signal transmitter and sends the processed signal to the controller”).
Regarding Claim 10, Ding discloses:
An electronic device comprising:
one or at least one processor (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L 33-37, “The detection device further includes a light leakage signal processor provided outside the housing. The light leakage signal processor includes a signal reception processing module, a controller, and a display terminal. The signal reception processing module is used to receive and process the The signal sent by the signal transmitter and sends the processed signal to the controller”); and
a storage device configured to store one or at least one program (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L 33-37, “The detection device further includes a light leakage signal processor provided outside the housing. The light leakage signal processor includes a signal reception processing module, a controller, and a display terminal. The signal reception processing module is used to receive and process the The signal sent by the signal transmitter and sends the processed signal to the controller”);
wherein when the one or at least one program is executed by the one or at least one processor (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L 33-37, “The detection device further includes a light leakage signal processor provided outside the housing. The light leakage signal processor includes a signal reception processing module, a controller, and a display terminal. The signal reception processing module is used to receive and process the The signal sent by the signal transmitter and sends the processed signal to the controller”), the one or at least one processor implements a method for detecting a ferrule (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L9, ferrule 3) of optical fiber (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L10, optical fiber 1), … an optical fiber sleeve (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12, “The ferrule 3 is a glass sleeve”), an adhesive is cured between the optical fiber sleeve (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L20, fixing glue 2) and … the method comprises:
controlling a laser generator to emit a laser beam with a preset power (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L21, 532nm laser), wherein the laser beam is focused on an end face of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected and passes into the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”);
obtaining real-time brightness at one or more preset positions of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”), …
receiving the real-time brightness, and determining whether the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified based on the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L23-29, “When the optical fiber 1 is used in conjunction with an ordinary optical fiber jumper, the optical fiber jumper of the glass ferrule 3 serves as the receiving end. If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product”).
Ding discloses the above, but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
… wherein the ferrule of optical fiber comprises a metal handle and …
… the metal handle, and
… wherein the one or more preset positions at least comprises a position at an adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, and the adhesive tail is a bonding position between an end of the metal handle and the optical fiber sleeve; and …
However, Arao, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL CONNECTOR), discloses:
… wherein the ferrule of optical fiber comprises a metal handle (Arao, FIG. 1, [0032], flange 130a, and [0029], “The ferrule is preferably made of a ceramic material or a metal material”) and …
… the metal handle (Arao, FIG. 1, [0032], flange 130a, and [0029], “The ferrule is preferably made of a ceramic material or a metal material”), and
… wherein the one or more preset positions at least comprises a position at an adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, and the adhesive tail is a bonding position between an end of the metal handle and the optical fiber sleeve (Arao, FIG. 1. Examiner notes that for the function of the ferrule, one of the preset point of issue where laser light would escape is inherently at the seam and point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding with the metal ferrule of Arao. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of metal ferrules as disclosed by Arao and how to use them to modify Ding. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known ferrule in a similar system.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 10, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein receiving the real-time brightness, and determining whether the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified based on the real-time brightness comprises:
presetting a brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”);
receiving the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”);
comparing the real-time brightness at each of the one or more preset positions with the brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”); and
if the real-time brightness at any one of the one or more preset positions being higher than the brightness threshold, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 10, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein receiving the real-time brightness, and determining whether the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified based on the real-time brightness comprises:
presetting a brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”);
receiving the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”);
comparing the real-time brightness at each of the one or more preset positions with the brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”); and
if the real-time brightness at each of the one or more preset positions being lower than the brightness threshold, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 11, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein if the real-time brightness at any of the one or more preset positions is higher than the brightness threshold, after determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified, the method further comprises:
determining a reason why the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified based on at least one preset position of the one or more preset positions where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed); and
outputting a visual detection report (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L44, “The leaked light intensity is displayed on the display terminal”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein determining the reason why the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified based on the at least one preset position of the one or more preset positions comprises:
if the at least one preset position where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold is located at the adhesive tail of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified due to poor adhesive dispensing.
However, as previously noted, Examiner notes that for the function of the ferrule, one of the preset point of issue where laser light would escape is inherently at the seam and point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle. As such, if there is notable leaking at the point of contact between the sleeve and the metal handle, that would inherently indicate an issue with the adhesive connecting the two, and as such would be obvious to PHOSITA in light of Ding and Arao.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 13, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein determining the reason why the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified based on the at least one preset position of the one or more preset positions comprises:
if the at least one preset position where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold is located on the optical fiber of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified due to light leakage of the optical fiber (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 1, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein receiving the real-time brightness, and determining whether the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified based on the real-time brightness comprises:
presetting a brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”);
receiving the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”);
comparing the real-time brightness at each of the one or more preset positions with the brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”); and
if the real-time brightness at each of the one or more preset positions is lower than the brightness threshold, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 3, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein determining the reason why the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified based on the at least one preset position of the one or more preset positions comprises:
if the at least one preset position where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold is located on the optical fiber of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, determining that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified due to light leakage of the optical fiber (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 5, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein the defect determining module of the ferrule of optical fiber comprises:
a presetting unit configured to preset a brightness threshold (Ding, P3, L36-39, “When it is transmitted to the surface of the ferrule, it can be detected by the detector, thus solving the leaked laser Difficult to determine the intensity of light. When too much leaked laser may affect the stability of the jumper structure, the fiber is judged to be a defective product and replaced”);
a receiving unit configured to receive the real-time brightness (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L12-15, “detector 4 for detecting laser leakage at the optical fiber connector”); and
a comparing unit configured to compare the real-time brightness with the brightness threshold, if the real-time brightness at each of the one or more preset positions is lower than the brightness threshold, the comparing unit determines that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is qualified (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 7, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein the determining module is further configured to:
when the at least one preset position where the real-time brightness is higher than the brightness threshold is located on the optical fiber of the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected, determine that the ferrule of optical fiber to be detected is unqualified due to light leakage of the optical fiber (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L25-29, “If a laser fails to enter the optical fiber 1, it will leak into the glass jumper structure, so that the glass sleeve The surface of the tube is detected by the detector 4, and the detected light intensity is proportional to the leaked light intensity, thereby determining the leaked light intensity. When the leakage light intensity is large enough, the optical fiber 1 is judged as a defective product.” Examiner notes that “judged as defective product” due to “the leaked light intensity” would be “determining a reason” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Ding and Arao discloses Claim 5, and Ding further discloses:
… wherein the preset power of the laser beam is above 100mW, and/or a wavelength band of the laser beam is between 400 nm and 700 nm (Ding, FIG. 1, P5, L21, 532nm laser).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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 ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights