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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vibes (Teecho Vibes, “How to Terminate 4 core Fiber Optic Cable | MODF”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bcWLqEV00Y, YouTube; Sep 5, 2019) in view of Okita (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0264337 A1). The Examiner cannot attach the video file; instead, several screenshots are attached as a pdf file.
Regarding claim 1, Vibes teaches on page 1 splitting a multicore fiber and removing the plastic jacket to obtain four sub fibers; page 2 shows the sub fibers; page 3 teaches removing the extra length of the sub fibers; page 4 shows the connecting of one sub fiber to an additional fiber—the part held by the left hand is the additional fiber while the right hand holds the sub fiber; page 5 shows the connection of the next sub fiber. The difference between Vibes and the claimed invention is that Vibes does not teach that the multicore fiber is a plastic fiber. Okita teaches in FIG. 2 a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) fiber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Okita with the method of Vibes because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Vibes to handle a plastic fiber, as taught by Okita.
Regarding claim 5, Vibes teaches on page 6 that the additional fiber and the sub fiber have the equal diameter (see the screen of the Fujikura Splice machine 62S).
Regarding claim 6, Okita teaches in FIG. 2 and paragraph [0051] PMMA fiber.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vibes and Okita as applied to claims 1 and 5-6 above, and further in view of Giorgi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0044740 A1).
Vibes and Okita have been discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 5-6. The difference between Vibes and Okita and the claimed invention is that Vibes and Okita do not teach sending a group of data packets over a section of the plastic multicore fiber which has not been cut; splitting the group of data packets into two or more sub groups of data packets; sending a first sub group of data packets over a first sub fiber of the two or more sub fibers; sending a second sub group of data packets over a second sub fiber of the two or more sub fibers. Giorgi et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a schematic diagram of an optical network node 28 comprising a data center optical switching arrangement 20 configured to provide connectivity for one or more servers 6 in a data center. FIG. 2 also shows a packet switched network 7 and a section of a multicore fiber which has not been cut (e.g., the multicore fiber connected to the EAST). Therefore the fibers and sub fibers of FIG. 2 carry data packets. FIG. 2 teaches a multicore connector section where the group of data packets are split into two or more sub groups (N subgroups are shown in FIG. 2) including a first subgroup and a second subgroup (labelled 1 and 2, respectively, on the left-hand side of multicore fiber 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Giorgi et al. with the modified system of Vibes and Okita because carrying packets in a data center provides the modified system of Vibes and Okita with industrial applicability. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry data packets, as taught by Giorgi et al., using the modified system of Vibes and Okita.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vibes and Okita as applied to claims 1 and 5-6 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0284059 A1).
Vibes and Okita have been discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 5-6. The difference between Vibes and Okita and the claimed invention is that Vibes and Okita do not teach that the connecting each of the two or more sub fibers to respective additional fibers comprises connecting each of the two or more sub fibers using an epoxy material. Lu et al. teaches in FIG. 6 and paragraph [0045] a system for protecting a splice of two fibers 116 and 118 where epoxy is injected through an injection port 142 to secure the splice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Lu et al. with the modified system of Vibes and Okita because the epoxy material secures the connection. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use epoxy material to secure the connection, as taught by Lu et al., in the modified system of Vibes and Okita.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vibes and Okita as applied to claims 1 and 5-6 above, and further in view of FiberOptic (FiberOptic, “Fiber Optic Skills Lab”, Fiber Optic Association, Inc., 2021. Downloaded from https://fiberu.org/Basic%20Skills%20Lab/Remote/LP-remote-LINK-PON.html).
Vibes and Okita have been discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 5-6. The difference between Vibes and Okita and the claimed invention is that Vibes and Okita do not teach using connectors. FiberOptic teaches the use of connectors to connect fibers; for example, FiberOptic teaches on page 4 connectors for connecting two fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of FiberOptic with the modified system of Vibes and Okita because using connectors makes the connection flexible such that connections can be changed easily. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use connectors for connecting fibers/sub fibers, as taught by FiberOptic, in the modified system of Vibes and Okita.
Regarding claim 10, Okita teaches in FIG. 2 and paragraph [0051] PMMA fiber.
Regarding claim 12, FiberOptic teaches on pages 5-6 1×2 splitter. It is obvious to connect the optical fiber to the end with a single port of the splitter and the first sub fiber and the second sub fiber to the two split ports.
Regarding claim 14, Okita teaches in FIG. 2 and paragraph [0051] PMMA fiber.
Regarding claim 18, FiberOptic teaches on pages 5-6 1×2 splitter. It is obvious to connect the optical fiber to the end with a single port, which is equivalent to the second end of instant claim, of the splitter and the first sub fiber and the second sub fiber to the end with two split ports, which is equivalent to the first end of instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, how long a portion of a fiber to be removed depends on the structure of the connector, however, the removed length must be less than the length of the whole fiber.
Regarding claim 20, FiberOptic teaches on pages 7 1×4 splitter. It is obvious to connect the optical fiber to the end with a single port of the splitter and the first sub fiber, the second sub fiber and the third sub fiber to the three of the split ports.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic as applied to claims 9-10, 12, 14 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Geens et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2026/0267081 A1).
Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic have been discussed above in regard to claims 9-10, 12, 14 and 18-20. The difference between Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic and the claimed invention is that Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic do not teach that the connector comprises an epoxy material. Geens et al. teaches in FIG. 2 and paragraph [0044] a fiber connector where strength members 55 can be attached to the connector core 23 at the rear cable attachment end 54 by epoxy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Geens et al. with the modified system of Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic because epoxy strengthens the connector-fiber structure. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use epoxy material to strengthen the fiber-connector structure, as taught by Geens et al., in the modified system of Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic as applied to claims 9-10, 12, 14 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Giorgi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0044740 A1).
Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic have been discussed above in regard to claims 9-10, 12, 14 and 18-20. The difference between Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic and the claimed invention is that Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic do not teach sending a group of data packets over a section of the plastic multicore fiber which has not been cut; splitting the group of data packets into two or more sub groups of data packets; sending a first sub group of data packets over a first sub fiber of the two or more sub fibers; sending a second sub group of data packets over a second sub fiber of the two or more sub fibers. Giorgi et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a schematic diagram of an optical network node 28 comprising a data center optical switching arrangement 20 configured to provide connectivity for one or more servers 6 in a data center. FIG. 2 also shows a packet switched network 7 and a section of a multicore fiber which has not been cut (e.g., the multicore fiber connected to the EAST). Therefore the fibers and sub fibers of FIG. 2 carry data packets. FIG. 2 teaches a multicore connector section where the group of data packets are split into two or more sub groups (N subgroups are shown in FIG. 2) including a first subgroup and a second subgroup (labelled 1 and 2, respectively, on the left-hand side of multicore fiber 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Giorgi et al. with the modified system of Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic because carrying packets in a data center provides the modified system of Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic with industrial applicability. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry data packets, as taught by Giorgi et al., using the modified system of Vibes, Okita and FiberOptic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 13 and 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl21 September 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights