Ex Parte de Jong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14197645 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/197,645 03/05/2014 Michael de Jong HIl 1-080 6638
21495 7590 09/05/2017
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
KIANNI, KAVEH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
u sdocket @ corning .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL DE JONG,
MICAH COLENISENHOUR,
DENNIS MICHAEL KNECHT, and
JAMES PHILLIP LUTHER
(Applicant: Coming Optical Communications LLC)
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,6451
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Coming Optical
Communications LLC, formerly known as Coming Cable Systems LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting2 claims 1 and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sauter,4 rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Sauter, and rejecting claims 2, 31, 32, and 345
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ueda6 in view of Sauter.7
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).8
We AFFIRM, but enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
The subject matter on appeal relates to lens holder assemblies (see,
e.g., claims 1,31, and 34). Appellants disclose that fiber optic equipment
normally does not experience a large number of mating cycles that would be
required for consumer electronic applications and that such equipment needs
to be protected from dirt and debris. Spec. 13. Appellants disclose lens
holder assemblies that accurately align end faces of lenses so they are
aligned with internal optical fibers and with an external complimentary
device. Id. 126. Bore relief zones of the assemblies are disclosed as
2 Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act.
Office Action Summary.
3 The Examiner states claim 30 is included in this rejection. Final Act. 3.
However, as stated by Appellants, claim 30 was canceled. Appeal Br. 39.
4 Sauter et al., US 6,056,448, issued May 2, 2000 (“Sauter”).
5 As will be discussed in further detail below, the Examiner includes claims
2 and 34 in this rejection but not claims 33 and 35.
6 Ueda et al., US 6,530,696 Bl, issued Mar. 11, 2003 (“Ueda”).
7 The rejection of claims 1,3,5, 6, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ueda has been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
8 Our Decision refers to the Appellants’ Specification (Spec.) filed Mar. 5,
2014, the Final Office Action mailed Sept. 16, 2015 (Final Act.),
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Jan. 25, 2016, the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) dated Aug. 31, 2016, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply
Br.) filed Oct. 28,2016.
2
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
beneficially minimizing friction between the assemblies and their alignment
pins, permitting cleaning of the alignment pins, and depositing undesirable
debris in a benign location. Id. 127.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.9 Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A lens holder assembly comprising:
a lens holder body comprising at least one optical
component within the lens holder body, a mating face, a first
forward slide portion and a first rear slide portion disposed on a
first side of the lens holder body, and a second forward slide
portion and a second rear slide portion disposed on a second side
of the lens holder body, wherein:
the first forward slide portion is longitudinally
aligned with the first rear slide portion such that the first
forward slide portion is separated from the first rear slide
portion by a first bore relief zone;
the second forward slide portion is longitudinally
aligned with the second rear slide portion such that the
second forward slide portion is separatedfrom the second
rear slide portion by a second bore relief zone; and
the at least one optical component is located at the
mating face and configured to be optically coupled to a
mated optical component.
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection under § 102 over Sauter
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sauter.
Appellants contend Sauter does not disclose the bore relief zones
recited in claim 1 because Figure 3 of Sauter depicts an exploded view, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the components
9 Appeal Br. 41.
3
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
depicted in Figure 3 would be stacked together, and Sauter does not disclose
a gap between its backing plate 3610 and the front wall 16 of its housing 12.
Appeal Br. 22—28; Reply Br. 3—6.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Appellants are correct that
Figure 3 of Sauter depicts an exploded view. Sauter 2:27. However, Sauter
discloses that the VCSEL chip 30 is secured to the backing plate 36 and “is
located precisely on the backing plate 36.” Id. at 4:37-41 (emphasis added).
Further, Sauter does not disclose that the chip 30 is recessed into the lens
array 10211 including lenses 112 and one can draw an inference from Figure
3 of Sauter that the chip 30 would be located on a surface of the lens array
102 because Figure 3 depicts the surface of the lens array 102 as lacking any
recess to receive the chip 30 within the lens array 102. Figure 3 also depicts
the chip 30 as being located between the guide pins 26, 28. Thus, there
would be an open gap between at least the backing plate 36 and the lens
array 102 around the pins 26, 28 due the presence of the chip 30 in between
the backing plate 36 and the lens array 102, as stated by the Examiner at
page 4 of the Final Office Action and page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer.
The Examiner finds the backing plate 36 of Sauter provides first and
second rear slide portions and a front portion of the housing 12 provides first
and second forward slide portions. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 4. In view of the
above findings, there would be a gap or bore relief zone between the backing
10 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
11 Lens array 102 is not labeled in Figure 3 but Sauter discloses the lens
array 102, or lens assembly 102, includes the lens 112 shown in Figure 3.
Sauter 4:25—31.
4
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
plate 36 and the front portion of the housing 12 because the chip 30 would
space the backing plate 36 and the lens array 102 apart from one another.
Furthermore, we note that claim 1 does not recite any particular
structure, dimension, or function for the bore relief zones. Appellants cite
paragraph 30 of the Specification, which states that bore relief zones are
regions of the lens holder body where material has been removed so
alignment pins are exposed. Appeal Br. 23—24. However, claim 1 does not
recite that the bore relief zones are where material of the lens holder body
has been removed or recite any of the benefits or functions disclosed in the
Specification. Claim 1 recites that the bore relief zones separate forward and
rear slide portions of the lens holder body. Therefore, claim 1 encompasses
forward and rear slide portions that are stacked together but separated by
objects in between them (i.e., fill the space between them), such as taught in
Sauter.
Appellants further assert claim 1 requires a single lens holder body
that comprises the forward slide portions, rear slide portions, and bore relief
zones recited in claim 1 but the Examiner finds multiple components of
Sauter function as a lens holder body. Id. at 28—33. This argument is
unpersuasive because claim 1 does not recite that the lens holder body has a
single piece construction or is otherwise a monolithic component. Further,
Appellants’ Specification does not limit the lens holder body to such an
embodiment because paragraph 29 of the Specification states “[i]n other
embodiments, the lens holder body may be formed from more than one-
piece as discussed herein.” See also Appellants’ Figure 5.
Appellants do not argue claim 5 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br.
22—28. For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the
5
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims
1 and 5 over Sauter.
Rejection under § 103 over Sauter
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sauter. Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claim 2. Rather, Appellants merely reiterate the arguments
set forth in support of the patentability of claim 1. Appeal Br. 37. For the
reasons set forth above, those arguments do not identify a reversible error.
Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 2 over Sauter is also sustained.
Rejection under § 103 over Ueda and Sauter
The Final Office Action states claims 31—33 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ueda in view of Sauter. Final Act. 11. The Examiner
states in the Examiner’s Answer that the rejections for claims 6, 33, and 35
have been withdrawn and claims 6, 33, and 35 include allowable subject
matter. Ans. 2—3, 5. However, the Examiner also states that claims 2 and
33—35 are included in the § 103 rejection over Ueda and Sauter. Id. at 2, 5.
Thus, it is unclear in the record whether claims 33 and 35 stand rejected
under § 103 over Ueda and Sauter. For the purposes of this appeal, we
consider the rejections of claims 6, 33, and 35 to have been withdrawn and
claims 33 and 35 not to have been rejected under § 103 over Ueda and
Sauter.
Appellants assert the Final Office Action does not address claims 34
and 35. Appeal Br. 38—39. As indicated above, the Examiner has
withdrawn the rejection of claim 35 under § 103 over Ueda and Sauter.
6
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
With regard to claim 34, the Examiner finds the limitations of claim 34 were
addressed in the Final Office Action even though claim 34 was not expressly
identified. Ans. 5.
The record supports the Examiner’s analysis because in the Final
Office Action the Examiner finds Ueda discloses a lens holder comprising at
least one optical component within a lens holder body that includes a mating
face, first and second forward slide portions, first and second rear slide
portions, and bore relief zones separating the forward and rear slide portions.
Final Act. 11—12. Ueda, Figures 1 and 3, column 5, line 66, to column 6,
line 50, and column 10, lines 12—38, support these findings. For instance,
the ferrule 2, 28 depicted in Figures 1 and 3 provide forward slide portions
and either the boot portion 4 depicted in Figure 1 or the coupling member 34
depicted in Figure 3 provide rear slide portions. See Ans. 6. The optical
fibers extending from the optical fiber cable 26 into the insertion holes 32 of
the ferrule 28 function as optical components.
The Examiner finds a length of the bore relief zones (i.e., the gaps
between the ferrule 2, 28 and the boot portion 4 or coupling member 34) are
equal to or greater than a length of each slide portion, as recited in claims 32
and 34. Id. at 11. Appellants do not dispute this finding. Appeal Br. 22—39;
Reply Br. 2—9.
The Examiner further finds Ueda does not disclose or suggest that the
optical component is a refractive lens, as recited in claims 2 and 31, but
finds Sauter discloses a refractive lens for its device and concludes it would
have been obvious to modify Ueda to include the lens of Sauter. Final Act.
12. Sauter, column 4, line 49, to column 5, line 4, supports this finding.
The Examiner makes similar findings and conclusion at pages 5—8 of the
7
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants assert that the arguments set forth above with respect to
claim 1 apply to claim 34. Appeal Br. 39. In response to the Examiner’s
explanation in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants further argue the
Examiner has not explained how Ueda discloses bore relief zones and the
Examiner relies upon multiple components of Ueda to function as a lens
holder body, not a single lens holder body. Reply Br. 6—9.
These arguments do not identity a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.12 The Examiner explains how Ueda discloses bore relief zones,
such as by providing an annotated copy of Ueda’s Figure 1 at page 6 of the
Examiner’s Answer and identifying the notched portions 9 between the
ferrule 2 and the boot portion 4 where pins 10 are exposed as bore relief
zones. Further, claim 34 does not require that the lens holder body has a
single piece construction or is otherwise a monolithic component, similar to
claim 1.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2, 31, 32, and 34 over Ueda
and Sauter.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 33 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection of claims 33 and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
12 Ueda describes Figures 1 and 3 as perspective views. Ueda 5:25—32.
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments regarding the exploded views of Sauter
are not applicable to Ueda.
8
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ueda in view of Sauter.
As stated above, the record indicates that the Examiner has withdrawn
the rejection of claims 33 and 35. However, the Examiner finds Ueda
discloses “at least one optical fiber disposed within the lens holder body,
wherein an end of the at least one optical fiber is optically coupled to the at
least one optical component,” as recited in claims 33 and 35. Final Act. 12.
We find Ueda, Figures 1 and 3, column 5, line 66, to column 6, line
50, and column 10, lines 12—38, support the Examiner’s finding because the
optical fibers extending from the optical fiber cable 26 into the insertion
holes 32 of the ferrule 28 function as optical components within Ueda’s lens
holder body (e.g., the ferrule 2, 28 and boot portion 4 or coupling member
34).
We further agree with the Examiner’s finding from the Final Office
Action that Sauter discloses a refractive lens at column 4, line 49, to column
5, line 4. Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Examiner in the Final Office
Action, that it would have obvious to modify Ueda to include the lens of
Sauter. Final Act. 12; Ans. 7—8. Moreover, it would have been obvious to
include the lens of Sauter that has diffraction grating structures so that light
transmitted through the lens is properly aligned with the input end of an
optical fiber, as taught by Sauter. Sauter 4:53—57. Such a modification
would have resulted in ends of the optical fibers of Ueda being optically
coupled to the lens,13 similar to the arrangement depicted in Figure 3 of
Sauter.
13 We note that claims 6, 33, and 35 do not require that the end of the at least
one optical fiber located inside of the lens holder body is optically coupled
to at least one optical component. In other words, the optically coupled end
could be any end of the optical fiber. Therefore, an end of the at least one
9
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
The arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief
regarding bore relief zones and a single lens holder body do not identify a
reversible error for the reasons discussed above with regard to the § 103
rejection of claims 2, 31, 32, and 34 over Ueda and Sauter and for the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. $ 102(b)
We also enter the following new ground of rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sauter.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1, and
includes limitations similar to those of claims 33 and 35. Sauter anticipates
the recitations of claim 6 because Sauter discloses its MT connector 60
includes optical fibers and input ports 61 to receive light emitted from the
lasers of a VCSEL chip 30 and transmitted through lenses 112 of a lens
array 102 and a clear window 110. Sauter 4:19-36. Thus, ends of the
optical fibers of the MT connector 60 are optically coupled14 to the lenses
112 and the lasers.
Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error with regard to
this ground of rejection. For the reasons discussed above with regard to the
§102 rejection of claim 1, Sauter discloses bore relief zones, as recited by
claim 1. Further, claim 1 does not exclude a lens holder body that comprises
multiple components, including the MT connector 60 of Sauter.
optical fiber that is optically coupled to at least one optical component may
be located outside of the lens holder body.
14 We find that Appellants’ Specification does not set forth a particular
definition for “optically coupled.” Therefore, we interpret “optically
coupled” as encompassing the transmission of light between components.
10
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
In summary, claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ueda and Sauter and claim 6 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sauter under these new grounds of
rejection.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed, with new grounds of
rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This section provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . .
. shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .
11
Appeal 2017-001480
Application 14/197,645
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
12