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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from JP2023-169693, filed September 29, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on September 27, 2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for inspecting an optical fiber ribbon. Consider method claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method or a process; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations “a step of specifying colors and positions of the optical fibers based on the color image” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations manually and in the mind of a person. That is, a user or person skilled in the art may determine This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of the user.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional step or a combination of additional steps in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional step of “a step of irradiating a surface of the optical fiber ribbon with light from a light source while causing the optical fiber ribbon to travel in the longitudinal direction, and causing an imaging device to acquire a two-dimensional color image based on scattered light that is emitted from the light source and scattered from the surface of the optical fiber ribbon” is considered to be extra-solution activity of gathering information. In addition, with respect to the device claims of claims 9-13, the mere recitation of a generic processor, memory, or storage medium to perform/store programming instructions of the recited/identified abstract idea does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the recited steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible. In addition, claims 2-8 and 10-13 of the instant application provide limitations that both individually or in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahereh Ahmadi Tameh (US 2025/0005741 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/523,558, filed June 27, 2023, which teaches the subject matter used in the herein rejection) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0025156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tameh teaches an inspection method of an optical fiber ribbon where a plurality of colored optical fibers are intermittently connected in a longitudinal direction (Tameh, Para. [0015], the fiber-optic cables include a plurality of colored fibers that have been ribbonized) (Tameh, Figs. 1 and 3, the optical fibers are arranged in parallel), the inspection method comprising:
a step of irradiating a surface of the optical fiber ribbon with light from a light source (Tameh, Para. [0019], the inspection device may include a light or illumination portion to illuminate the cable to be inspected)
causing an imaging device to acquire a two-dimensional color image based on scattered light that is emitted from the light source and scattered from the surface of the optical fiber ribbon (Tameh, Para. [0025], the control electronics may cause the camera to generate an image of the ribbonized cable that is known to have the colors of the fibers in a correct order. The image is then analyzed by the processor and software to prepare a color map of the known cable. As shown in FIG. 3, for example, the cable 100 is imaged by pixels 302 to create the color map 304. The color map includes RGB values for each of the fibers); and
a step of specifying colors and positions of the optical fibers based on the color image (Para. [0025]; Fig. 3, the cable 100 is imaged by pixels 302 to create the color map 304. The color map includes RGB values for each of the fibers. The color map may then be stored in the memory and is associated with a particular type of cable. Para. [0026], If the RGB values match, the cable may be determined by the inspection device 200 to have passed the inspection and have a correct order of the colored fibers).
Although Tameh teaches a ribbonized fiber optics cable (Tameh, Para. [0015]), Tameh does not explicitly teach that the colored optical fibers are connected “through a connecting resin” and that the irradiation occurs “while causing the optical fiber ribbon to travel in the longitudinal direction”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches the connection part of the optical fiber ribbon is formed by applying an ultraviolet curable resin to be an adhesive and the irradiating an ultraviolet ray and being set (Takahashi, Para. [0042]). Takahashi further teaches the control section makes the camera repeatedly perform capturing an image of an optical fiber ribbon along the width direction, while moving the intermittent connection type optical fiber ribbon in the longitudinal direction, accumulates one-dimensional images of an optical fiber ribbon in the width direction, and creates a two-dimensional image by arranging the accumulated plurality of one-dimensional images in the Y direction (a direction orthogonal to an X direction in which pixels configuring the one-dimensional image are aligned) (Takahashi, Para. [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tameh with the teachings of Takahashi by including connecting optical fibers through a connecting resin and causing the optical fiber ribbon to travel in the longitudinal direction. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for a method of inspecting an optical fiber ribbon, as recognized by Takahashi. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Tameh teaches the inspection method of the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 1, further comprising a step of determining whether arrangement of the optical fibers is normal based on the specified colors and the specified positions of the optical fibers (Para. [0026], If the RGB values match, the cable may be determined by the inspection device 200 to have passed the inspection and have a correct order of the colored fibers. If the RGB values do not match, the cable may be determined by the inspection device 200 to have not passed the inspection and have an incorrect order of the colored fibers).
Regarding claim 7, Tameh in view of Takahashi teaches the inspection method of the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 1, wherein the step of specifying colors and positions of the optical fibers based on the image includes:
a step of specifying a region where each of the optical fibers is imaged in the image (Tameh, Para. [0026], if the RGB values match, the cable may be determined by the inspection device 200 to have passed the inspection and have a correct order of the colored fibers); and
a step of specifying a color of each of the specified regions (Tameh, Para. [0025], the image is then analyzed by the processor and software to prepare a color map of the known cable. As shown in FIG. 3, for example, the cable 100 is imaged by pixels 302 to create the color map 304. The color map includes RGB values for each of the fibers).
Claims 9-10 and 13 recite devices with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claims 1-2 and 7, respectively. Therefore, the recited elements of these claims are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in their corresponding method claims. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Tameh and Takahashi references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to these claims. Finally, the combination of the Tameh and Takahashi references discloses a light source (Tameh, Para. [0019], the inspection device may include a light or illumination portion), an imaging device (Tameh, Para. [0019], a camera or imaging portion) and a control device (Tameh, Para. [0019], and control electronics).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahereh Ahmadi Tameh (US 2025/0005741 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/523,558, filed June 27, 2023, which teaches the subject matter used in the herein rejection) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0025156 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 9-10 and 13 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US 2025/0180490 A1, with foreign priority to JP2022-127217, filed August 9, 2022, US PGPub used herein for translation and mapping purposes).
Regarding claim 3, Tameh in view of Takahashi teaches the inspection method of the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Tameh in view of Takahashi teaches capturing images every time the optical fiber ribbon moves a predetermined length (Takahashi, Para. [0058]), the do not explicitly teach “wherein 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)”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kawaguchi teaches if the conveyance speed vc by the conveyance unit is 2 m/sec and the length of the sample in the conveyance direction dc is 10 mm, the time during which the imaging unit can detect the spectral image formed by Raman scattered light generated from the sample is 5 milliseconds or less (Kawaguchi, Para. [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tameh in view of Takahashi with the teachings of Kawaguchi by including that the imaging period is less than the length of the imaging range divided by the travelling speed by the conveyance unit in seconds. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for analyzing a sample on a conveyance unit, as recognized by Kawaguchi. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahereh Ahmadi Tameh (US 2025/0005741 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/523,558, filed June 27, 2023, which teaches the subject matter used in the herein rejection) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0025156 A1) further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US 2025/0180490 A1, with foreign priority to JP2022-127217, filed August 9, 2022, US PGPub used herein for translation and mapping purposes), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2020/0324991 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tameh in view of Takahashi further in view of Kawaguchi teaches the inspection method of the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 3, as described above.
Although Tameh in view of Takahashi further in view of Kawaguchi teaches that the imaging period is less than the length of the imaging range divided by the travelling speed by the conveyance unit in seconds (Kawaguchi, Para. [0077]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein when an overlapping width α [mm] in the longitudinal direction of imaging ranges imaged before and after the imaging period T is set to a constant, the imaging period T is changed depending on the traveling speed V of the optical fiber ribbon such that a relational expression of T=(L−α)/(V/60) is satisfied”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches the overlap area is N or more in terms of image capturing pixels, the number of pixels in the conveyance direction is L0. A conveyance speed is set to satisfy V≤(L0−N)/T (i.e., T=(L0−N)/V) (Nakamura, Para. [0234]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tameh in view of Takahashi further in view of Kawaguchi with the teachings of Nakamura by including that the imaging period is equal to the difference between the length and the overlap width divided by the conveyance speed. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for changing the image acquisition interval time in synchronism with a change in the conveyance speed, as recognized by Nakamura. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahereh Ahmadi Tameh (US 2025/0005741 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/523,558, filed June 27, 2023, which teaches the subject matter used in the herein rejection) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0025156 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 9-10 and 13 above, and further in view of Yamakawa et al. (US 2024/0096667 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tameh in view of Takahashi teaches the inspection method of the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Tameh in view of Takahashi teaches illuminating the cable to be inspected (Tameh, Para. [0019]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the imaging device is disposed such that a first angle between the surface of the optical fiber ribbon and incidence light emitted from the light source and incident on the surface of the optical fiber ribbon and a second angle between the surface of the optical fiber ribbon and scattered light scattered from the surface of the optical fiber ribbon and incident on the imaging device are different from each other”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Yamakawa teaches the incident angle of the illumination light is preferably set to, for example, 60 degrees or more and 75 degrees or less (the elevation angle is 15 degrees or more and 30 degrees or less) (Yamakawa, Para. [0063]). Yamakawa further teaches the scattered light is incident on the imaging sensor at an incident angle close to 90 degrees at the maximum (Yamakawa, Para. [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tameh in view of Takahashi with the teachings of Yamakawa by including a first angle between the surface and illumination light and a second angle between the surface and scattered light incident on the imaging device are different. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for inspecting a surface using irradiated light, as recognized by Yamakawa. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 11 recites a device with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Tameh, Takahashi and Yamakawa references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Tameh, Takahashi and Yamakawa references discloses a light source (Tameh, Para. [0019], the inspection device may include a light or illumination portion), an imaging device (Tameh, Para. [0019], a camera or imaging portion) and a control device (Tameh, Para. [0019], and control electronics).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahereh Ahmadi Tameh (US 2025/0005741 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/523,558, filed June 27, 2023, which teaches the subject matter used in the herein rejection) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0025156 A1) further in view of Yamakawa et al. (US 2024/0096667 A1), as applied to claims 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Katsutoshi Usuda (US 2011/0075133 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tameh in view of Takahashi further in view of Yamakawa teaches the inspection method of the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 5, wherein
the second angle is 85° or more and 95° or less (Yamakawa, Para. [0104], the scattered light is incident on the imaging sensor at an incident angle close to 90 degrees at the maximum).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Tameh, Takahashi and Yamakawa references presented in the rejection of Claim 5, apply to Claim 6 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Tameh in view of Takahashi further in view of Yamakawa teaches an incident angle of illumination light (Yamakawa, Para. [0063]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the first angle is 25° or more and 35° or less”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Usuda teaches the laser light source emits a laser beam that will be incident on the back surface of the sample at an angle of approximately 30 degrees (Usuda, Para. [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tameh in view of Takahashi further in view of Yamakawa with the teachings of Usuda by including the first angle is between 25 and 35 degrees (i.e., 30 degrees). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for inspecting surfaces by irradiating light, as recognized by Usuda. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 12 recites a device with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Tameh, Takahashi, Yamakawa and Usuda references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Tameh, Takahashi, Yamakawa and Usuda references discloses a light source (Tameh, Para. [0019], the inspection device may include a light or illumination portion), an imaging device (Tameh, Para. [0019], a camera or imaging portion) and a control device (Tameh, Para. [0019], and control electronics).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahereh Ahmadi Tameh (US 2025/0005741 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/523,558, filed June 27, 2023, which teaches the subject matter used in the herein rejection) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0025156 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 9-10 and 13 above, and further in view of Chalk et al. (US 2023/0273390 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tameh in view of Takahashi teaches the inspection method of the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Tameh in view of Takahashi teaches optical fibers arranged in parallel (Tameh, Figs. 1 and 3), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the optical fiber ribbon includes a plurality of sub-ribbons each of which includes two optical fibers and a coating resin that continuously covers a periphery of the two optical fibers in the longitudinal direction” and “in a state where the sub-ribbons are arranged in parallel, the sub-ribbons adjacent to each other are intermittently connected to each other in the longitudinal direction through the connecting resin”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Chalk teaches FIG. 2 depicts a longitudinal cross-sectional view of two adjacent optical fibers 12, each having a coating 16 and a bond formed therebetween. The optical fibers 12 have an outer surface 18 on which the coating 16 is applied. The coating 16 is continuously applied along the lengths of the optical fibers 12 whereas the bond 14 is applied in a dropwise fashion at particular locations along the length (Chalk, Para. [0021]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tameh in view of Takahashi with the teachings of Chalk by including forming a bond between two adjacent fibers using a coating resin continuously covering the fibers in the longitudinal direction. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for generating an optical fiber ribbon, as recognized by Chalk. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights