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 § 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 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Abedin 9,946,014US in view of the US Patent to Shah 10,348051US.
In terms of Claim 21, Abedin teaches An optical fiber assembly (Figures 1-5) for propagating a multimode (MM) signal from a light source (Figure 2: from input fiber 42; Column 5, lines 1-15), with a light source numerical aperture (NA) value (See Figure 2: the fiber size of 42 relative to 410 on 29), the optical fiber assembly comprising: a multicore fiber (MCF; Figure 2: 20) comprising a MCF numerical aperture (NA) value (Figure 2: 20), a first core diameter MCF diameter (Figure 2: diameter of individual cores within 20) and a MCF outer diameter (Figure 2: diameter of 20); and a combiner including: a taper fiber bundle (Column 10, lines 10-20 or Figure 4: tapered bundle of 60) portion in communication with the MCF (See Figure 2: 20), and at least one pigtail (Figure 5: ends at 61) portion; a pigtail NA value (all pigtails has NA which is located at 61); diameter of pigtail core diameter (diameter at 61) an optical fiber (Figure 2: from input fiber 42) for coupling the light source to the pigtail portion (Figure 42 and 61); the optical fiber comprising an optical fiber NA (all fibers has an NA value; in this case the NA of 42 is located at end face of 42 or at the outputting point); an optical core diameter (diameter of 42); wherein the combiner propagates the MM signal from the light source (Figure 2).
Abedin does not teach wherein a mismatch accounting for at least 2db of splice loss, the mismatch being on selected from a group consisting of a core diameter mismatch between two coupling fibers.
Shah does teach a mismatch accounting for at least 2db of splice loss, the mismatch being on selected from a group consisting of a core diameter mismatch between two coupling fibers (Column 42, lines 1-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the splice loss due to diameter mismatch in order to reduce the susceptibility of the fiber amplifier to optical feedback (Column 42, lines 1-30). This ensures the system does not get damage or signal does not degrade due unwanted feedback within the system (Column 42, lines 1-30).
As for Claim 22, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 21, wherein Abedin teaches the fiber NA value of the TFB is less than or equal to a MCF NA value (See Figure 2 wherein the size of fiber of core within 20 is much larger than coupling fiber 29 thus, producing a greater NA in 20 which is the MCF. This result in the NA of TFB to be less than NA of MCF).
As for Claim 23, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 21, the signal NA value at the pigtail portion is less than an NA value of the light source (See Figure 2: the fiber size of 42 relative to 410 on 29)
As for Claim 24, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 21, wherein the optical fiber is a launch fiber for connecting the pigtail portion (Figure 5: 61 or Figure 2: tip of 410) is connected to the light source (Figure 2: 410 and 42) via a launch fiber (Figure 2: 42) having an NA value greater than the signal NA value at the pigtail portion (Figure 2: 42 and 410 on 29).
As for Claim 25, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 21, wherein the cross-talk between the core is less than -13 dB (Column 11, lines 25-35).
As for Claim 26, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 21, wherein the launch fiber is a fiber ribbon array including either a circular ribbon configuration or a linear ribbon configuration (Figure 3: illustrates a plurality of circular stack ribbon fiber arranged in circular ribbon configuration).
As for Claim 27, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 26, wherein the fiber ribbon array (Figure 3). As for the limitations wherein the fiber ribbon is terminated in one of a multifiber connector, a multifiber push-on connector, an expanded beam multifiber connector, and a lensed multifiber interconnect the examiner takes official notice since using connector on an end of a fiber is well for coupling purposes. The prior art Abedin also talks about using couplers (Column 4, lines 60-67) which may also qualify as connectors since the applicant has not define any unique structures requirement to term “connectors” the couplers taught by Abedin may also meet the limitations of connectors as claimed.
As for Claim 28, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 21, wherein a loss at the TFB is less than 2.2db (Column 13, lines 25-35).
As for Claim 30, Abedin teaches the device of Claim 21, wherein at least one of the TFB and the TFB pigtail is configured to prevent core to core coupling (See Figure 5: wherein each core is separate by its own cladding or confine area; further see 29 wherein the cores are separate to prevent core to core coupling).
Claims 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedin / Shah as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Bansal 20180267233US.
In regards to Claim 29, Abedin / Becker teaches the device of Claim 21.
Abedin and Becker do not teach wherein at least one of the TFB and the TFB pigtail is configured to remove stray light through the use of a light scattering component that is made of a gel material.
Bansal teaches wherein at least one of the TFB and the TFB pigtail is configured to remove stray light through the use of a light scattering component that is made of a gel material ([0040]) in order to reduce unwanted light and to reduce heat of the fiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TFB of Abedin to contain a gel like coating made of high refractive index scattering material similar to the one used by Bansal ([0040]) in order to stripped out unwanted light and reduce the heat of the fiber thus prolong the fiber durability and life span.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added claims 21-30 have been rejected in view of newly cited prior art to Shah as detailed above.
This action is therefore made FINAL.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - Friday.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights