Ex Parte SUGAWARA et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 21, 201914411212 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/411,212 12/24/2014 22827 7590 05/23/2019 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hiroshi SUGAWARA 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. AFLSPL-119B-PCT-US 1069 EXAMINER HERRING, LISA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2019 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): USDOCKETING@DORITY-MANNING.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROSHI SUGA W ARA and WENXIN ZHENG 1 Appeal2018-007441 Application 14/ 411,212 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 11-15 and 17-20 as unpatentable over Fernald (US 2004/0165841 Al; published Aug. 26, 2004) in view ofBoegli (US 2012/0012594 Al; Jan. 19, 2012), Kim ("Laser output power stabilization for circular laser writing systems by using acousto-optic modulator," Proc. of Spie vol. 6723, 673257-1-7, 2007), Chapman (US 2003/0223712 Al; published Dec. 4, 2003), and Esmaeili 1 Appellant is the Applicant, APL Telecommunications LLC., which is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1 ). Appeal2018-007441 Application 14/ 411,212 (US 6,499,319 Bl; issued Dec. 31, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appellant claims a method for splicing, tapering and heat processing optical fibers comprising the steps of shining a laser beam on a target-area of the optical fibers, receiving light from areas of the optical fibers by one or more cameras 4, forming images of the areas, sampling the laser beam by a beam sampler 8 in conjunction with a detector 7, and "controlling fluctuations in an output power level of the laser according to a signal received from the beam sampler and to said images received from the one or more cameras to stabilize the output power level" (sole independent claim 11, Fig. 3). A copy of representative claim 11, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 11. A method for splicing, tapering and heat processing optical fibers, the method comprising: shining a beam of a laser on a target-area of one or more optical fibers; receiving light from one or more areas of the one or more optical fibers by one or more cameras; forming images of the one or more areas; sampling the laser beam by a beam sampler in conjunction with a detector; and controlling fluctuations in an output power level of the laser according to a signal received from the beam sampler and to said images received from the one or more cameras to stabilize the output power level. 2 Appeal2018-007441 Application 14/ 411,212 Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims under rejection (see generally App. Br.). Therefore, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 11. We sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action, the Examiner's Answer, and below. In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner finds that Fernald discloses a method for processing optical fibers using a laser whose output power level is adjusted with a controller via a feedback loop involving data from a beam splitter (i.e., sampler) (Final Action 3). According to the Examiner's additional finding, Fernald fails to disclose that the aforementioned step of adjusting the output power level "provides for controlling fluctuations in an output power level of the laser" (id.). Concerning this feature, the Examiner (i) relies on Boegli to show that a method/system using a feedback loop involving data from a beam splitter, like Fernald's, not only adjusts but also stabilizes the output power level of a laser and (ii) relies on Kim to show that controlling (i.e., increasing) stability also controls (i.e., reduces) fluctuations in an output power level of a laser (id.). The Examiner determines that the combined teachings of Fernald, Boegli, and Kim would have led one with ordinary skill in this art to recognize the desirability of using Fernald's adjusting step for controlling stability and concomitantly fluctuations in an output power level (id. at 3--4). The Examiner also finds that Fernald fails to disclose using camera images for controlling and stabilizing the output power level (id. at 4). The 3 Appeal2018-007441 Application 14/ 411,212 Examiner finds that Chapman discloses a method for processing optical fibers using a thermal monitor to provide a feedback loop to precisely control the output power level and that Esmaeili discloses a similar method of using a camera and the images formed thereby to control the laser welding process and achieve the desired splice of optical fibers (id.). The Examiner's fundamental position is that, in view of Chapman and Esmaeili, one skilled in this art would have found it obvious to provide Femald's method with a camera for forming images of the optical fiber areas to be spliced and to use these images in Femald's feedback loop thereby resulting in an output power level having controlled stability and concomitantly fluctuations as claimed. Appellant argues "neither Chapman nor Esmaeili ( nor any of the other cited references) discloses the critical requirement in independent claim 11 of fluctuations in an output power level being controlled by received images" (App. Br. 4). Appellant does not embellish this argument with a reasonably specific explanation why Chapman and Esmaeili would not have suggested the Examiner's proposed modification of providing Femald's feedback loop with data from camera images (i.e., an addition to data from Femald's beam splitter) in order to control the output power level of the laser. While Chapman and Esmaeili may not disclose the claim 11 feature of using camera images for controlling fluctuations specifically, the Examiner does not rely on these references alone for teaching or suggesting such a feature. As explained above, the Examiner relies on Boegli and Kim for the proposition that an artisan would have recognized the desirability of using 4 Appeal2018-007441 Application 14/ 411,212 Femald's step of adjusting the output power level to increase stability and correspondingly decrease fluctuations in the output power level. Significantly, Appellant fails to discuss the Examiner's reliance on the Boegli and Kim references and, more importantly, fails to present an explicable argument that the combined teachings of Fernald, Boegli, Kim, Chapman, and Esmaeili would not have resulted in the claim 11 method (see generally App. Br.). See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). In summary, Appellant fails to reveal error in the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of the appealed claims. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation