DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “A system…is described, having a fiber drawing apparatus…” is grammatically incorrect. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites controlling said inscribing by selecting and/or tuning the laser repetition rate for controlling grating positions along the fiber. Applicant has amended the claims to use the term “grating position”. However, the specification does not use the same term. In light of the specification, grating position will be interpreted as the spacing between the gratings of a grating array, as disclosed in paragraph [31].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the grating array" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7, 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (2015/0160409). Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a method for producing an optical fiber with an inscribed grating ([0023]-[0024]), the method comprising drawing an optical fiber ([0005], [0023], [0027], fig. 1), and inscribing a grating in the optical fiber during a drawing process of the optical fiber using a coherent radiation source comprising a laser ([0005], [0023]-[0024]) with a selectable and/or tunable laser repetition rate (“tune-able repetition rate” [0033], “controlling…laser …repetition rate” [0034]), wherein during said drawing, the method further comprises capturing information regarding a drawing fiber speed and/or a fiber drawing parameter during the drawing process (“which reads fiber translation speed” [0040]), and controlling said inscribing by selecting and/or tuning the laser repetition rate (“external input…to trigger the RA”…”allows changing of laser repetition rate”) for controlling grating positions along the fiber (“spacing” [0028], “pitch” [0034]), based on the captured information ([0037]-[0040]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lai further teaches that the process of capturing information regarding the length of the fiber and/or the drawing fiber speed and/or a fiber drawing parameter comprises guiding the optical fiber in a non-slipping mode (see FIG. 1); one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the roller assemblies present at bottom of FIG. 1 would apply tension and guide the optical fiber in a non-slipping mode (e.g., such that the deviation of the fiber from an intended path is limited or lessened); see also paragraph [0064], which describes the use of various features of the fiber translation system, such as tension monitoring load cells, line speed control, fiber tension control, v-groove guide wheels, and apertures, are used to apply tension to the optical fiber and guide optical fiber in a non- slipping mode (e.g., such that the deviation of the fiber from an intended path is limited or lessened).
Regarding Claim 3, Lai further teaches that the process of capturing information comprises recording a speed of the drawing process (see Lai, paragraph [0040]; speed of the drawing process (e.g., "fibre translation speed") is recorded).
Regarding Claim 4, Lai further teaches that the process of controlling said inscribing comprises controlling the inscribing so as to fine tune the position and/or a wavelength of a fiber Bragg grating in a fiber Bragg grating array to be inscribed in the optical fiber (see Lai, paragraphs [0033-0040] and Claim 16; fine tuning of the position and/or wavelength of a fiber Bragg grating array ("Fibre Bragg grating (FBG)" as in Claim 16) by controlling inscribing (e.g., controlling laser pulse repetition rate to adjust position or wavelength of grating (via grating period or pitch control) or wavelength of grating)).
Regarding Claims 5-7, Lai further teaches that processes of controlling can comprise dynamically controlling the inscribing during the drawing of a same fiber, continuously controlling the inscribing during the drawing of a same fiber, or controlling the inscribing in between inscription processes in a same fiber (see Lai, paragraphs [0024] and [0026]; dynamic control of inscribing (with laser 108) can be conducted during drawing of a same fiber (e.g., in response to measurement detected by first measuring unit 106); optical fiber processing system can be configured to process fiber in a continuous manner (thus, the inscribing can be continuously controlled during the drawing of a same fiber); see also Lai, paragraph [0034]; lengths and positions of gratings that are inscribed is controlled with laser shutter; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the shutter would be adjusted between inscription processes in a same fiber in order to control the inscribing).
Regarding Claim 9, Lai further teaches that controlling comprises selection of irradiation pulses based on the captured information regarding the length of the fiber and/or the drawing fiber speed and/or a fiber drawing parameter during the drawing process (see Lai, paragraphs [0037-0040]; selection of irradiation pulses (e.g., output of pulse laser system, by pulse oscillator coupled to regenerative amplifier) based on drawing fiber speed).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Lai further teaches that controlling comprises controlling the radiation modulation during the fiber drawing process, wherein the controlling comprises dynamically controlling the radiation modulation during the fiber drawing process, and dynamically controlling is continuous controlling or controlling in between inscriptions (see Lai, [0037-0040]; radiation modulation of inscription laser is continuously controlled by a femtosecond pulse oscillator and regenerative amplifier in order to control laser repetition rate and fiber grating period).
Regarding Claim 15, Lai further teaches that said inscribing comprises inscribing a grating using a pulse train that is generated such that the pulses in the pulse train lie sufficiently close together such that the fiber can be considered static with respect to the pulse train (see Lai, paragraphs [0033-0034]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a pulse train would be generated using the laser and laser shutter described, and that the small grating pitch described indicates that the pulses in the pulse train lie sufficiently close together such that the fiber can be considered static with respect to the pulse train).
Regarding Claim 16, Lai teaches an optical fiber with inscribed grating (see Lai, paragraphs [0023-0024]), the optical fiber being made by a method comprising: drawing an optical fiber ([0005], [0023] and [0027] and FIG. 1; a fiber is drawn from a preform); inscribing a grating in the optical fiber during a drawing process of the optical fiber using a coherent radiation source comprising a laser with a selectable and/or tunable laser repetition rate (see Lai, paragraphs [0005], [0023-0024], [0033]; laser is used to inscribe a grating in the fiber), wherein during said drawing, the method comprises capturing information regarding the length of the fiber and/or the drawing fiber speed and/or a fiber drawing parameter during the drawing process, and controlling said inscribing by selecting and/or tuning the laser repetition rate for controlling grating positions along the fiber ([0028], [0034]), based on the captured information (see Lai, paragraph [0024]; fiber drawing parameter (e.g., diameter of fiber as measured by first measuring unit 106) is used in controlling said inscribing (e.g., control of the pulse light/laser 108; alternatively see paragraphs [0037-0040]; drawing fiber speed ("fibre translation speed") is used in controlling said inscribing (e.g., signal for triggering regenerative amplifier of pulse laser system)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (2015/0160409). Lai teaches a method for producing an optical fiber with an inscribed grating ([0023]-[0024]), the method comprising drawing an optical fiber ([0005], [0023], [0027], fig. 1), and inscribing a grating in the optical fiber during a drawing process of the optical fiber using a coherent radiation source comprising a laser for generating irradiation pulses ([0005], [0023]-[0024]) with a selectable and/or tunable laser repetition rate (“tune-able repetition rate” [0033], “controlling…laser …repetition rate” [0034]). Lai teaches the laser has a laser parameter comprising a laser repetition rate at which the irradiation pulses are generated by the laser and a radiation modulating means (radiation modulation of inscription laser is controlled by a femtosecond pulse oscillator and regenerative amplifier in order to control laser repetition rate and fiber grating period [0037]-[0040]). Lai further teaches capturing information regarding a drawing fiber speed and/or a fiber drawing parameter during the drawing process (“which reads fiber translation speed” [0040]) using a drawing detecting means (“fiber translation system control which reads fibre translation speed” [0040]). Lai teaches controlling the inscribing by tuning the laser to a particular laser repetition rate during the drawing of the optical fiber ([0033], [0038], [0040]), thereby controlling grating positions and tuning a spacing between the gratings of a grating array (“spacing” [0028], “pitch” [0034]), based on the captured information from the drawing detection means (“external input…to trigger the RA”…”allows changing of laser repetition rate” [0037]-[0040]).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (2015/0160409) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Biyikli et al. (2006/0133728). Lai teaches adjusting equipment including a laser shutter, to achieve a desired Bragg wavelength ([0033]-[0034]). Lai also recognizes controlling can be achieve using other known means including adjusting an interferometer ([0005]). However, Lai is silent regarding adjusting a Talbot interferometer for controlling the inscribing. Biyikli, in a similar field of endeavor, fiber processing, teaches a method of inscribing a grating on an optical fiber. In Biyikli, in order to achieve a desired Bragg wavelength in an inscribed grating, a Talbot interferometer is adjusted (see Biyikli, Abstract and paragraphs [0029-0030]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lai such that the other equipment used in Lai to achieve a desired Bragg wavelength, such as the laser shutter, is substituted with a Talbot interferometer, as taught in Biyikli, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have understood that the equipment of and the Talbot interferometer taught in Biyikli were -recognized alternative options that could predictably be utilized to modulate the laser inscription in order to achieve a desired Bragg wavelength in the inscribed grating. See KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) and MPEP 2143 B.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (2015/0160409) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Van Der Ende (WO2015/135918). Lai teaches a marker for providing marking on the optical fiber, but is silent on providing marking on the optical fiber based on the captured information, said controlling comprising controlling the marking. However, Van Der Ende, in a similar field of endeavor, fiber processing, teaches a system for monitoring a fiber. In Van Der Ende, the fiber is provided with a marking by a marker module that is controlled based on information from a fiber length detecting means (see Van Der Ende, Abstract, page 4 lines 10-12, and page 14 lines 20-27). Van Der Ende teaches that the marking can aid in determining length, position, or location of the fiber, and in determining an integrity or condition or risk of failure of the fiber (see page 10 line 24 to page 11 line 7). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lai such that the marker of Lai is controlled based on information from a fiber length detecting means, as taught in Van Der Ende, because one of ordinary skill in the art could have improved upon the marker of Lai in a manner similar to that taught in Van Der Ende for the predictable result of aiding in the determination of length, position, or location of the optical fiber of Lai, and/or in determining an integrity or condition or risk of failure of the optical fiber of Lai. See KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) and MPEP 2143 C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following, regarding Lai:
“The laser repetition is not used to control the position of a grating or fiber Bragg grating along the fiber but is instead related to a grating pitch of an individual grating.”
It appears the applicant is trying to distinguish between a position of a grating and a grating pitch of an individual grating. This is not found persuasive. The applicant’s disclosure appears to suggest that the spacing between the gratings of a grating array is the position of the grating ([31]). More specifically, the claimed language recites “controlling said inscribing by selecting and/or tuning the laser repetition rate for controlling grating positions along the fiber”, which is the same as ”controlling of the writing system may be selecting and/or tuning the laser frequency for tuning the spacing between the gratings of a grating array” and “varying the laser frequency allows selecting the distance between gratings of a gratin array” as recited in [31], wherein the distance between gratings of a grating array is the equivalent of the distance between fringes of a grating. There doesn’t appear to be any other disclosure in the specification that would suggest grating positions is different from a spacing or distance between grating of a grating array. Thus, the grating pitch, or spacing between two adjacent gratings ([0028] of Lai) reads on the term “grating positions” as recited in claim 1.
Applicant further elaborates that the disclosure of the claimed invention teaches that a grating may be inscribed using a single laser pulse.
The argument that Lai teaches a non-interferometric writing method or uses a single laser pulse are also not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights