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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/24 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 13; the limitation “the control device determines that a portion having a higher intensity of reflected light between the optical fibers adjacent to each other than forward and backward portions in the longitudinal direction is determined to be a portion where the connecting resin is formed” is unclear and indefiniteness. First, the phrase “higher intensity of reflected light between the optical fibers adjacent to each other than forward and backward portions in the longitudinal direction” is a relative term that does not provide a clear standard for determining the required degree of difference in intensity. Second, the phrase “forward and backward portions in the longitudinal direction” is unclear how far these portions extend along the longitudinal direction or which specific regions are used for comparison when determining whether the intensity is higher. Therefore, these limitation ambiguities, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be not able to determine with reasonable certainty the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, particularly how the control device identifies the portions where the connection resin is formed based on the reflected light intensity. Accordingly, claims 7 and 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention and therefore is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
For the purpose examination, this limitation of the claim invention is considered to be “an intensity of reflected light between the two optical fibers adjacent to each other is greater than an intensity of reflected light in the forward and backward of connection resin of the two optical fibers in the longitudinal direction”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (JP 2000121493 A hereinafter “Hashimoto”) in view of Takahashi et al (JP 2014095560 A hereinafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9; Hashimoto discloses an inspection device and method of an optical fiber ribbon (the optical fiber ribbon 1 @ figure 1) where a plurality of optical fibers (2 @ figure 1) is intermittently connected in a longitudinal direction through a connecting resin (coating resin 3 @ figure 1) in a state where the optical fibers (2 @ figure 1) are arranged in parallel, the inspection device (figures 1, 3, and 5) comprising:
a light source (31 @ figure 3) configured to irradiate a surface of the optical fiber ribbon (1 @ figure 1 and/or 5 @ figure 3) where the connecting resin (3 @ figure 1) is provided with light, the optical fiber ribbon (1 @ figure 1) traveling in the longitudinal direction (figure 1); and
an imaging device (42 @ figure 3) configured to acquire an image based on reflected light (13, 14 @ figure 1) that is emitted from the light source (31 @ figure 1) and reflected from the surface of the optical fiber ribbon (1 @ figure 1 and/or 5 @ figure 3). See figures 1-13
Hashimoto discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a control device configured to detect a position of the connecting resin based on the image. However, Takahashi teaches that it is known in the art to provide a control device (78, 70 @ figure 3: e.g., The laser sensor 76 shown in FIG. 3 receives reflected light of the laser beam irradiated to the optical fiber ribbon 10a and detects the formation state of the coupling portion 12 / non-coupling portion 13, and irradiates the laser beam. An irradiation / reflected light receiving unit 77 in which a light irradiation unit and a light receiving unit that receives the reflected light are integrated, and a light detection unit 78 that detects the amount of the received reflected light are provided) configured to detect a position of the connecting resin (12 @ figures 1-2 and 7-8) based on the image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection device and method of Hashimoto with a control device configured to detect a position of the connecting resin based on the image as taught by Takahashi for the purpose of reducing the diameter and weight of optical cables, increase the density, and improve workability, and multiple single-core coated optical fibers.
Regarding claims 2 and 10; Hashimoto discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the control device determines whether the detected position of the connecting resin is normal. However, Takahashi teaches that it is known in the art to provide the control device (70, 78 @ figure 3) determines whether the detected position of the connecting resin (12 @ figure 8) is normal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection device and method of Hashimoto with limitation above as taught by Takahashi for the purpose of reducing the diameter and weight of optical cables, increase the density, and improve workability, and multiple single-core coated optical fibers.
Regarding claims 5 and 11; Hashimoto discloses the imaging device (42 @ figure 3) is disposed such that a first angle (θ1 @ figure 2) between incident on the surface (4 @ figure 2) and incidence light (12 @ figure 2) emitted from the light source (31 @ figure 3) and a second angle (θ2 @ figure 2) between the surface (4 @ figure 2) and reflected light (13, 14 @ figure 2) reflected from the surface (4 @ figure 2) and incident on the imaging device (42 @ figure 3: e.g., even when θ1 and θ2 are set to the same angle position) are the same.
Regarding claims 6 and 12; Hashimoto discloses the second angle is 25º or more and 35º or less (figures 2 and 5: e.g., the opening angle θ3 of the light receiving portion 22b for observing the surface of the coating of the optical fiber core wire was 30 °).
It is noted that the limitation “the second angle is 25º or more and 35º or less” is considered to be “25º < the second angle < 35º”.
Regarding claims 7 and 13; Hashimoto discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the control device determines that an intensity of reflected light between the two optical fibers adjacent to each other is greater than an intensity of reflected light in the forward and backward of connection resin of the two optical fibers in the longitudinal direction. However, Takahashi teaches that it is known in the art to provide the control device (70, 78 @ figure 3) determines that an intensity of reflected light between the two optical fibers (11 @ figures 7-8) adjacent to each other is greater than an intensity of reflected light in the forward and backward of connection resin (coupling part 12 @ figures 7-8) of the two optical fibers (11 @ figures 7-8) in the longitudinal direction (Takahashi teaches in figures 7-8 such as a detection unit that detects the formation state of the non-bonded part 13, for example, the length of the bonded part 12/ non-bonded part 13 and the interval thereof. That is, most of the laser light applied to the coupling part 12 is reflected, the reflected light receiving part receives a lot of reflected light, and the transmitted light receiving part receives a slightly transmitted light. On the other hand, most of the light irradiated to the non-coupled portion 13 is transmitted, and the reflected light receiving portion receives light slightly reflected near the non-coupled portion 13, and the amount of received light is greatly reduced). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine inspection device and method of Hashimoto with limitation above as taught by Takahashi for the purpose of reducing the diameter and weight of optical cables, increase the density, and improve workability, and multiple single-core coated optical fibers.
Regarding claim 8; Hashimoto discloses the optical fiber ribbon (1 @ figure 1 and 13A-13D) includes a plurality of sub-ribbons (e.g., two sub-ribbons in figure 13A) each of which includes two optical fibers (2 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0010]: e.g., the optical fiber 2 is imaged by the imaging camera 11) and a coating resin (3 @ figure 1) that continuously covers a periphery of the two optical fibers (2 @ figure 1) in the longitudinal direction (figure 1), and in a state where the sub-ribbons (figure 13A) are arranged in parallel (figure 13A and paragraph [0005]: e.g., optical fiber ribbons further connected in parallel by connecting a plurality of units in parallel with the coupling resin), the sub-ribbons adjacent to each other (e.g., two sub-ribbons in figures 13A-13D) are intermittently connected to each other in the longitudinal direction through the connecting resin (3 @ figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious an inspection method of an optical fiber ribbon comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including an imaging period T [ms] of the imaging device is set such that the imaging period T, a length L [mm] of an imaging range in the longitudinal direction of the imaging device, and a traveling speed V [m/min] of the optical fiber ribbon satisfy a relational expression of T < L/(V/60) in set forth of claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Takahashi et al (US 2019/0025156) discloses a method for inspecting an intermittent connection type optical fiber ribbon.
2) Isaji et al (US 2021/0191061) discloses a method for manufacturing an optical fiber ribbon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
February 5, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877