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 .
The Office action mailed on 2/25/26 (Notice of Non-compliance) is hereby vacated (as agreed with Applicant and mentioned in the attached interview summary).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A and Group II in the reply filed on 3/17/25 and further clarified on 10/30/25 [i.e., claims 1, 2-4, 6-11 are currently elected; claim 12 was canceled, both claims 17 and 19 are withdrawn since they now depend from the non-elected claim 13 which is drawn to a non-elected Species B; claim 18 is withdrawn due to being drawn to non-elected species B] is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auth et al. (US 20130034322; “Auth”).
Regarding claim 1, Auth teaches an optical fiber {OF} comprising a structured silica cladding (e.g., figs. 14, 15; ¶s 0074-0075: fine-structuring trench depths; ¶s 0013-0017, 0030: quartz glass is another name for silica; fluorine {F} is a down-dopant used for the trenches of the cladding; ¶ 0024) with an average refractive index and a silica core with a refractive index higher than said structured silica cladding average refractive index {RI} (e.g., figs. 14, 15: the parabolic/elliptical core 1 in zone 2 clearly has a higher average RI than the structured silica cladding 3 RI).
Thus claim 1 is met.
Regarding claim 2, Auth teaches the optical fiber according to claim 1 (see above), wherein said structured silica cladding 3 (e.g., figs. 14, 15) comprises a number of paired layers of down doped silica (e.g., figs. 14, 15: trenches 5) and then a less down-doped or an up-doped or even pure silica (e.g., figs. 14, 15: between the trenches 5 are thin/narrow un-doped/pure silica), said less-doped, up-doped, or even pure silica layer being thinner than said down doped layer (e.g., figs. 14, 15: between the trenches 5 are thin/narrow un-doped/pure silica).
Thus claim 2 is met.
Regarding claim 3, Auth teaches the optical fiber according to claim 1 (see above), wherein a ratio of said down-doped layer thickness to said less down-doped silica layer thickness is between about 2 to 15 (e.g., figs. 14, 15; ¶ 0152: “The trench widths are large relative to the interposed matrix material, especially 10 times greater”).
Thus claim 3 is met.
Regarding claim 4, Auth teaches the optical fiber according to claim 2 (see above), wherein said number of paired layers is between about 2 and 30 (e.g., figs. 14, 15 have at least two paired layers; ¶ 0112: a higher number of trench structures than just 2 or 3 shown in embodiments is beneficial).
Thus claim 4 is met.
Regarding claim 7, Auth teaches method of producing an optical fiber according to claim 1 (see above; ¶ 0024), with a structured silica cladding and a higher refractive index silica core, which comprises, preparing a preform (e.g., ¶ 0024; at least figs. 14, 15 show the core has a higher RI; ¶ 0105: preform created then drawing the OF) having a circular silica core surrounded by a section of circular layered pairs of a down doped layer followed by a thinner higher refractive index silica layer; and drawing said preform with standard drawing parameters to create optical fibers with selected fiber core dimensions (e.g., at least figs. 14, 15 show the core has a higher RI; ¶ 0105: preform created then drawing the OF; ¶s 0024-0033).
Thus claim 7 is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auth et al. (US 20130034322; “Auth”) with obviousness evidenced by DiGiovanni et al. (US 5802236; “DiGiovanni”).
Regarding claim 9, Auth teaches new subclass of all-silica optical fibers comprising: a core, having a refractive index, or refractive index profile; a structured silica cladding surrounding said core, having an average refractive index lower than said core (e.g., figs. 14, 15: the parabolic/elliptical core 1 in zone 2 clearly has a higher average RI than the structured silica cladding 3 RI which means the structured silica cladding surrounding said core, having an average refractive index lower than said core), said structured silica cladding (e.g., figs. 14, 15; ¶s 0074-0075: fine-structuring trench depths; ¶s 0013-0017, 0030: quartz glass is another name for silica; fluorine {F} is a down-dopant used for the trenches of the cladding; ¶ 0024) being composed of a number of alternating layers of differing refractive index and thickness wherein said structured silica cladding is composed of alternating layers, paired layers (e.g., figs. 14, 15 have at least two paired layers; ¶ 0112: a higher number of trench structures than just 2 or 3 shown in embodiments is beneficial), of lower refractive index silica and of higher refractive index silica, and the layers have different thicknesses (e.g., figs. 14, 15; ¶ 0152: “The trench widths are large relative to the interposed matrix material, especially 10 times greater”); and wherein a ratio of the thicknesses of the lower refractive index layer to that of the higher refractive index layer, in a given paired layer, falls within the range of 3 to 20 (e.g., figs. 14, 15; ¶ 0152: “The trench widths are large relative to the interposed matrix material, especially 10 times greater”); and the number of paired layers comprising the structured silica cladding varies (e.g., figs. 14, 15 have at least two paired layers; ¶ 0112: a higher number of trench structures than just 2 or 3 shown in embodiments is beneficial).
Auth does not explicitly state that Auth’s number of paired layers comprising the structured silica cladding that varies, specifically varies from “5 to 30”.
However, it was well-known to be in the range of 5 to 30 at least as evidenced by DiGiovanni (e.g., DiGiovanni col. 9, lines 64-66: even 20 layers of alternating high and low RI; DiGiovanni col. 9, line 64 to col. 10 line 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be in the range of 5 to 30 at least for the purpose of having optimizing the desired RI profile.
Thus, Auth with OEB DiGiovanni (herein may be referred to as simply “Auth-DiGiovanni”) teaches the structure of claim 9.
Auth-DiGiovanni does not explicitly state the fibers are “particularly useful for speckle- free output even from low mode power sources”.
However, MPEP § 2114 states:
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) ("where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on").
It is noted that the examiner has concluded that the essential structure of Auth-DiGiovanni’s invention, inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations “particularly useful for speckle- free output even from low mode power sources”. This conclusion arises from the fact that Auth-DiGiovanni’s structure has all of the claimed structure which the instant claim 9 indicates, and thus is capable of performing the claimed functions. If the same structure is present, then it should inherently be able to perform the claimed function(s).
Thus claim 9 is rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Auth-DiGiovanni teaches the optical fiber according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the ratio of thicknesses of the lower refractive index layer to the that of the higher refractive index layer is between about 7 and 15 (e.g., figs. 14, 15; ¶ 0152: “The trench widths are large relative to the interposed matrix material, especially 10 times greater”).
Thus claim 10 is rejected.
Regarding claim 11, Auth-DiGiovanni teaches the optical fiber according to claim 9 (see above), wherein the number of paired layers is between about 10 and 25 (e.g., DiGiovanni col. 9, lines 64-66: even 20 layers of alternating high and low RI; DiGiovanni col. 9, line 64 to col. 10 line 1; so, the number of paired layers taught by Auth-DiGiovanni is 10 paired layers and 10 paired layers is in the claimed range of “between about 10 and 25” paired layers).
Thus claim 11 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious wherein within said silica core is an innermost core, doped with rare earth materials, whose refractive index is higher than said core silica, and said doped innermost core allows said optical fiber to function as a cladding pumped fiber laser or fiber amplifier in combination with the rest of claim 6.
It is noted that claim 6 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim.
Furthermore, the subject matter of claim 6 is deemed to be allowable at least because Auth teaches a core pumped fiber laser and claim 6 is a cladding pumped fiber laser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874