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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after 25 August, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4 have been entered and considered. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action are references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 25 August, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
112b Rejections of Claims 1 and 4 should be overcome by amendment: The examiner agrees. The original 112b rejections of Claims 1 and 4 is withdrawn.
Kitahara does not teach that the core has rounded edges: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kitahara does present a core with rounded edges as shown in the annotated figure 2 provided in the section regarding 102 rejections. The original grounds of rejection are not overcome by the applicant’s amendments and are sustained as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitahara et al (US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0319422 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
634
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Kitahara et al. teaches an optical fiber including a core extending along a central axis (“optical fiber[ including] a core” detailed in the Abstract that extends along a central axis as shown in Figure 1) and a clad covering a circumference of the core (“cladding is twisted… about outer circumference” Abstract), the optical fiber being a process fiber for transmitting a laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator (“optical fiber[ including] a core” detailed in the Abstract that extends along a central axis as shown in Figure 1) the optical fiber comprising: an outer edge portion constituting an outer edge of a core (“outer circumference” Abstract) , wherein the outer edge portion includes: a plurality of sides (the prior art further teaches that “outer circumference” has a plurality of sides shown in Figure 2); and a plurality of corner portions respectively connecting the sides adjacent to each other so that the plurality of sides are continuous (the prior art further teaches that “outer circumference” has a “number of vertices [0009]” shown in Figure 2 that make it so the plurality of sides are continuous; at least one corner portion of the plurality of corner portions has a rounded edge (Figure 2 shows rounded corner portions which read on the limitations of the claims) along a circumscribed circle circumscribed to the outer edge portion; and when a diameter of the circumscribed circle is O (The prior art discloses that the “circumcircle” has a diameter of D2 [0009]), a diameter of an inscribed circle inscribed to the outer edge portion is I (The prior art discloses that the “outer circumference” has a diameter of D1 [0009]), and the number of the plurality of corner portions is n (n = an odd number) (As shown in Figure 2, the number of vertices is an odd number which can be an odd number and thus reads on the limitations of the claim), a diameter ratio a(a = 0/I), which is a ratio between the diameter O of the circumscribed circle and the diameter I of the inscribed circle, satisfies a following mathematical formula.
PNG
media_image2.png
44
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Given that the shape of the outer and inner circumscribed circles shown in Figure 2 match the drawings provided in the application and define the same relationship, it is clear that the relationship of the diameter ratio of the prior art would satisfy the relationship of the provided formula).
Regarding Claim 2 and 5: Kitahara et al further teaches that the core cross section is an n- polygon (“polygon” Abstract Figure 2) in which lengths of the respective sides are equal and angles sizes of the respective corner portions are equal (Figure 2 further shows that the number of respective sides and number of corner portions are equal).
Regarding Claim 3 and 6: Kitahara et al further teaches that the optical fiber when the core has a twisted shape twisted around the central axis in an axis direction of the central axis of the core (core has a “twisted” shape [0017]) and a constant k is a positive number smaller than 1, the diameter ratio a satisfies a following mathematical formula.
PNG
media_image3.png
44
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Given that the shape of the outer and inner circumscribed circles shown in Figure 2 match the drawings provided in the application and define the same relationship, it is clear that the relationship of the diameter ratio of the prior art would satisfy the relationship of the provided formula).
Regarding Claim 4: Kitahara et al further teaches a laser processing machine (“laser device” [0024]), comprising: a laser oscillator configured to output a laser beam (the prior art presents a laser oscillator in the form of a “resonator [through which]… laser oscillation is achieved ([0037] Figure 1 Element 32); a main body of the laser processing machine configured to perform laser processing by using the laser beam output from the laser oscillator (the prior art further teaches that the “laser device” [0024] has a main body shown in Figure 1 Element 1);
and an optical fiber configured to transmit the laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator to the main body of the laser processing machine (Figure 1 Element 10), the optical fiber including a core extending along a central axis (“optical fiber[ including] a core” detailed in the Abstract that extends along a central axis as shown in Figure 1)and a clad covering a circumference of the core (“cladding is twisted… about outer circumference” Abstract), wherein the optical fiber includes an outer edge portion constituting an outer edge of a core cross section (“outer circumference” Abstract) the outer edge portion includes: a plurality of sides (the prior art further teaches that “outer circumference” has a plurality of sides shown in Figure 2); and a plurality of corner portions respectively connecting the sides adjacent to each other so that the plurality of sides are continuous (the prior art further teaches that “outer circumference” has a “number of vertices [0009]” shown in Figure 2 that make it so the plurality of sides are continuous, at least one corner portion of the plurality of corner portions has a rounded edge along a circumscribed circle circumscribed to the outer edge portion (Figure 2 shows rounded corner portions which read on the limitations of the claims as understood and detailed in the 112 b rejection section above), and when a diameter of the circumscribed circle is 0 (The prior art discloses that the “circumcircle” has a diameter of D2 [0009]), a diameter of an inscribed circle inscribed to the outer edge portion is I (The prior art discloses that the “outer circumference” has a diameter of D1 [0009]), and the number of the plurality of corner portions is n (n = an odd number) (As shown in Figure 2, the number of vertices is an odd number which can be an odd number and thus reads on the limitations of the claim), a diameter ratio a(a = 0/I), which is a ratio between the diameter O of the circumscribed circle and the diameter I of the inscribed circle, satisfies a following mathematical formula.
PNG
media_image2.png
44
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Given that the shape of the outer and inner circumscribed circles shown in Figure 2 match the drawings provided in the application and define the same relationship, it is clear that the relationship of the diameter ratio of the prior art would satisfy the relationship of the provided formula).
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.
Alternatively, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara et al (US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0319422 A1) in view of one of ordinary skill in the art:
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 4: Kitahara et al. discloses the limitations as outlined above. Kitahara et al does not teach the equation where a is a ratio of the diameter of the circumscribed circle to the diameter of the outer edge portion
PNG
media_image4.png
58
441
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Kitahara does teach the relevant ratio. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result-effective variable of the ratio of the diameter of the circumscribed circle to the diameter of the outer edge portion as evidenced by reference Kitahara et al in the process of primary reference in order to achieve a desired property as disclosed by the reference to “suppress the occurrence of skew” [0007] of the laser operation. This is additionally supported by the applicant’s own disclosure which states that the intended effect of the present invention is to make the “intensity distribution of the beam profile unform” [0008] See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected in a similar manner to the rejections above.
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761