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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Line 8 of Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in “…wherein the device includes…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the device” is referring to the end-face observation device as recited in line 1 of Claim 1 or another device altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, “the device” is referring to the end-face observation device.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPS 62-040504 where portions from an attached translation is cited below) in view of Akishige (JP2003233013A, with portions of an attached translation cited below) and further in view of Csipkes (US 5,724,127).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Murayama teaches an end-face observation device and method for observing an end face of an optical fiber (Page 3, paragraph 2: An outer diameter estimation apparatus is used for obtaining an image of an end face of an optical fiber from the front of the end face.) which includes an optical fiber (Fig. 2: bare optical fiber 21 (page 12)) and a coating portion (Fig. 2: covering portion 22 as described on page 11) coating an outer periphery of the optical fiber (shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 11, last paragraph),
wherein the optical fiber (Fig. 2: bare optical fiber 21) has
a coated region (Fig. 2: covering portion 22) in which the optical fiber is coated with the coating portion (shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 11, last paragraph), and
a protruding region in which the optical fiber protrudes from a coating end face that is an end face of the coating portion by cutting and removing the coating portion (shown in Fig. 2 where the bare optical fiber 21 protrudes from the end face of the covering portion 22), and
wherein the device includes
a light source (Fig. 2: optical fiber 25 emits light from a halogen lamp used as a light source (page 13, paragraph 1).) configured to emit light to be incident on a side surface of the protruding region (shown in Fig. 2 where light from optical fiber 25 is irradiated onto the side of the bare optical fiber 21 (page 3, paragraph 2).), and
a camera (Fig. 2: television camera (page 15, second paragraph)) configured to acquire an observation image of an end face of the protruding region (shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 15).
Murayama appears to be silent to the light source is configured to emit light to a reflecting surface configured to cause reflected light to be incident on a side surface of an object.
Akishige, related to an apparatus for illuminating an end face of a ferrule and optical fibers, does teach a light source (Fig. 2: light source 19) is configured to emit light to a reflecting surface (Fig. 2: annular reflecting surface 26 and 27) configured to cause reflected light (Fig. 2: reflected light P2 and P3) to be incident on a side surface of an object (Shown in Fig. 2 where reflected light P2 and P3 from annular reflection surface 26 and 27, respectively is incident onto the side of ferrule 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama so that light source is configured to emit light to a reflecting surface configured to cause reflected light to be incident on a side surface of the protruding region, as disclosed by Akishige. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that adequate brightness and adequate contrast can be provided for illuminating an end face segment of an object which allows for exact measurements of the contour shape of the end face segment of the object to be measured (Abstract).
Murayama modified by Akishige appears to be silent to the optical fiber is a glass optical fiber.
Csipkes, related to a system and method for inspecting an end of a fiber optic, does disclose an optical fiber that is a glass optical fiber (Shown in Fig. 3 and described in Col. 5, ll. 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige so that the optical fiber is a glass optical fiber, as disclosed by Csipkes. Csipkes discloses that Figure 3 depicts a typical fiber optic where the fiber optic may have a core region 82 and cladding region 84 that are both made out of glass (Col. 5, ll. 34-36). Therefore, the use of a glass optical fiber is well-known in the field of endeavor and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (where the optical fiber is a glass optical fiber in end face inspection devices) to yield predictable results (to be inspected by the end face inspection device) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 6, Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 1.
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes further teaches a fiber holder (Murayama, Fig. 2: fiber holder 24) configured to hold the optical fiber (Murayama, Fig. 2: optical fiber 21 inside of covering portion 22).
Regarding Claim 9, Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 1.
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes further teaches that the light source (Murayama. Fig. 2: halogen lamp as a light source in optical fiber 25) emits light having a single wavelength or a plurality of wavelengths (Murayama, Halogen lamp provides a continuous spectrum of light) included in a visible region (Murayama, Halogen lamps include wavelengths in the visible region) and a near-infrared region.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPS 62-040504 where portions from an attached translation is cited below) in view of Akishige (JP2003233013A, with portions of an attached translation cited below) and Csipkes (US 5,724,127), and further in view of Barenek (US 20100097600 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 1.
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes further teaches the reflecting surface (Akishige, Fig. 2: ring-shaped/annular reflection surface 26 and 27).
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes appears to be silent to the reflecting surface is the coating end face.
Barenek, related to monitoring optical fibers, does teach that the reflecting surface (coated end face surface 505 which may be a reflective thin film material [0018]) is the coating end face (Fig. 1: coated end face surface 505 where light from laser 200 is reflected off the coated end face surface 505 toward fiber 50 that is monitored so that the faults on the fiber 50 can be detected [0012]).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige and Csipkes so that the reflecting surface is the coating end face, as disclosed by Barenek. The advantage of using a coated end face surface as a reflecting surface is that the reflected light from the coated end face surface is incident onto the fiber to be monitored where the reflected light off of the monitored fiber can be detected and used to detect faults on the monitored fibers ([0007] and Abstract from Barenek).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPS 62-040504 where portions from an attached translation is cited below) in view of Akishige (JP2003233013A, with portions of an attached translation cited below) and Csipkes (US 5,724,127), and further in view of Tanaka (US 20170131511 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 1.
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes further teaches the coating portion (Murayama, covering portion 22 shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 11, last paragraph).
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes appears to be silent to the coating portion includes a coating resin.
Tanaka, related to optical fibers, does teach that the coating portion includes a coating resin (Fig. 9: primary coating layer 103, the uncolored secondary coating layer 905, and the colored layer 907 are made of ultraviolet curing resin and are formed around the glass optical fiber 101 ([0006]).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige and Csipkes so that the coating portion includes a coating resin, as disclosed by Tanaka. Tanaka discloses that the optical fiber structure as shown in Fig. 9 is conventional ([0006]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements (optical fiber with a coating portion) according to known methods (where the coating portion includes a coating resin) to yield predictable results (structure of an optical fiber with protective coating) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 4, Murayama modified by Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 3.
Murayama modified by Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka further teaches that the coating resin (Tanaka, [0006]: “The primary coating layer 103, the uncolored secondary coating layer 905, and the colored layer 907 are made of ultraviolet curing resin and formed around the glass optical fiber 101 in this order.”) includes a primary resin layer (Tanaka, Fig. 9: primary coating layer 103) coating the outer periphery of the glass optical fiber (Tanaka, Fig. 9: glass optical fiber 101) and a secondary resin layer (Tanaka, Fig. 9: uncolored secondary coating layer 905) coating an outer periphery of the primary resin layer (Tanaka, Shown in Fig. 9).
Murayama modified by Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka (for claim 3) appears to be silent to the optical fiber is an uncolored optical fiber.
However, Tanaka, related to optical fibers, discloses that protection coating layers of an optical fiber are generally clear and colorless ([0005]) which would provide an uncolored optical fiber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka (for claim 3) so that the optical fiber is an uncolored optical fiber, as disclosed by Tanaka. Tanaka discloses that protection coating layers of an optical fiber are generally clear and colorless ([0005]) which would provide an uncolored optical fiber. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements (protective coating of optical fibers) according to known methods (where the protective coating is clear and colorless) to yield predictable results (overall structure of an optical fiber) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 5, Murayama modified by Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 3.
Murayama modified by Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka further teaches that the coating resin (Tanaka, Fig. 9: elements 103, 905, and 907 as described in [0006]) includes a primary resin layer (Tanaka, Fig. 9: primary coating layer 103) coating the outer periphery of the glass optical fiber (Tanaka, Fig. 9: glass optical fiber 101), a secondary resin layer (Tanaka, Fig. 9: uncolored secondary coating layer 905) coating an outer periphery of the primary resin layer (Tanaka, shown in Fig. 9), and a colored resin layer (Tanaka, Fig. 9: colored layer 907) coating an outer periphery of the secondary resin layer (Tanaka, shown in Fig. 9).
Murayama modified by Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka (for claim 3) appears to be silent to the optical fiber is a colored optical fiber.
Tanaka, related to optical fibers, does teach that the optical fiber is a colored optical fiber (colored optical fiber shown in Fig. 9 and described in [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige, Csipkes, and Tanaka (for claim 3) so that the optical fiber is a colored optical fiber, as disclosed by Tanaka. Tanaka discloses that colored optical fibers are conventional in the field of endeavor ([0006]) with the advantage of providing distinguishing features between optical fibers that optimize work efficiency in installation ([0005]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPS 62-040504 where portions from an attached translation is cited below) in view of Akishige (JP2003233013A, with portions of an attached translation cited below) and Csipkes (US 5,724,127), and further in view of Isao (JP2000221105A, where portions of an attached translation are provided below).
Regarding Claim 7, Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 6.
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes further teaches the reflecting surface (Akishige, Fig. 2: annular reflecting surface 26 and 27) and the fiber holder (Murayama, Fig. 2: fiber holder 24).
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes appears to be silent to the reflecting surface is a tip end face of the fiber holder.
Isao, related to an apparatus and method for inspecting an end surface of an optical fiber, does teach that the reflecting surface (Fig. 2: light reflecting surface 22) is a tip end face (Fig. 2: light reflecting surface 22 is the side surface 22 of the V groove block 20) of the fiber holder (Fig. 2: V groove block 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige and Csipkes so that the reflecting surface is a tip end face of the fiber holder, as disclosed by Isao. The above-mentioned configuration has the advantage of allowing for the easy adjustment of the lengthwise direction of a V-groove which allows for even an inexperience worker to be able to inspect the end face of an optical fiber ([0018] from Isao).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPS 62-040504 where portions from an attached translation is cited below) in view of Akishige (JP2003233013A, with portions of an attached translation cited below) and Csipkes (US 5,724,127), and further in view of Diepstraten (US 20210270695 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 1.
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes further teaches that the light source (Akishige, Fig. 2: light source 19) has a light emitting surface (Akishige, A light source would necessarily have a light emitting surface).
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes appears to be silent to the light source has a light emitting surface facing the reflecting surface and wherein a hollow portion is provided in a central portion of the light emitting surface.
Diepstraten, related to a fiber optic ferrule inspection tool, does teach that the light source (Fig. 11: light source 36) has a light emitting surface facing the reflecting surface (Fig. 11A: light reflecting surface(s) 54) and wherein a hollow portion is provided in a central portion of the light emitting surface (shown in annotated Fig. 11 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige and Csipkes so that the light source has a light emitting surface facing the reflecting surface and wherein a hollow portion is provided in a central portion of the light emitting surface, as disclosed by Diepstraten. The above-mentioned configuration has the advantage of allowing for light to be directed across the end face of the optical fiber ferrule which assists in illuminating contamination and imperfections provided on the end face which can then be readily viewed on a camera ([0026] from Diepstraten).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (JPS 62-040504 where portions from an attached translation is cited below) in view of Akishige (JP2003233013A, with portions of an attached translation cited below) and Csipkes (US 5,724,127), and further in view of Yuhara (US 5677973 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes teaches the end-face observation device for the optical fiber according to claim 1.
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes further teaches that the camera is an image-processing support camera (Murayama, Page 15, 2nd paragraph: Television camera 29 images the end face of the optical fiber 21).
Murayama modified by Akishige and Csipkes appears to be silent to the camera is configured to calculate a rotation angle of the optical fiber.
Yuhara, related to the problem of aligning optical fibers, does teach that the camera is configured to calculate a rotation angle of the optical fiber (Col. 4, ll. 50-55: “Therefore, a rotational angle around the center axis of the optical fiber is measured from the distribution of the image characteristic. Based on the result, the orientation of the rotational direction of the optical fiber using an optical fiber rotating member to achieve alignment can be attained.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Murayama combined with Akishige and Csipkes so that the camera is configured to calculate a rotation angle of the optical fiber, as disclosed by Yuhara. Knowing the rotation angle of an optical fiber allows for a user to be able to align the optical fiber (Col. 4, ll. 50-55 from Yuhara).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights