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 .
Abstract Objections
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
the abstract uses a phrase which can be implied (e.g., the phrase “According to the present invention”; it is implied that the abstract will include a concise summary of the invention); and
the abstract includes legal phraseology often used in patent claims (e.g., the word “comprises” and the phrase “and/or”), which should be avoided.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) reads as follows:
(u) Numbering of views.— “…Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear…”
In the instant case, only one view (a single drawing) is used to illustrate the claimed invention. Accordingly, the single drawing must not be labeled “FIG. 1.” The drawing should instead be simply labeled “Figure” or “The Figure.”
See also MPEP 608.02. A corrected drawing sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include the figure appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, appropriate changes made to the brief description of the drawing for consistency. The drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [04], the 3rd sentence should read “Further in the production process, the fiber crosses the optical axis of a laser and the interferometer that creates a periodical interference pattern in order to write the grating.” Additionally, the 4th sentence should read “When the grating has been written the fiber is coated by entering a coating reservoir, followed by a curing step of the coating.” (as currently written, “a-curing” is present instead of “a curing”).
In paragraph [19], the last sentence should include a period.
In paragraphs [49], [65], and [66], “FIG. 1” is used to refer to the sole drawing. However, according to MPEP 608.02 and 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), “…where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention…the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear…”. The drawing should simply be referred to as “figure” or “the figure.”
In paragraph [50], the sentences “…The drawings are only schematic and are non-limiting. In the drawings, the size of some of the elements may be exaggerated and not drawn on scale for illustrative purposes…” should read “…The drawing is only schematic and is non-limiting. In the drawing, the size of some of the elements may be exaggerated and not drawn on scale for illustrative purposes…”
In paragraph [52], the sentence “…In the different drawings, the same reference signs refer to the same or analogous elements…” should read “…In the drawing, the same reference signs refer to the same or analogous elements.…”
In paragraph [54], the sentences “…The present invention will be described with respect to particular embodiments and with reference to certain drawings but the invention is not limited thereto but only by the claims. The drawings described are only schematic and are non-limiting. In the drawings, the size of some of the elements may be exaggerated and not drawn on scale for illustrative purposes…” should read “…The present invention will be described with respect to particular embodiments and with reference to the drawing but the invention is not limited thereto but only by the claims. The drawing described is only schematic and is non-limiting. In the drawing, the size of some of the elements may be exaggerated and not drawn on scale for illustrative purposes…”
In paragraph [66], the last two sentences appear to disagree on the use of “detector” and “detectors.” The last two sentences should read “The system for monitoring 118 may comprise detectors for detecting the diameter of the fiber. The detectors may be optical detectors, although embodiments are not limited thereto.” or “The system for monitoring 118 may comprise a detector for detecting the diameter of the fiber. The detector may be an optical detector, although embodiments are not limited thereto.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the phrase “A method for producing an optical fiber with inscribed grating” should read “A method for producing an optical fiber with an inscribed grating”. Furthermore, the phrase “drawing an optical fiber; inscribing a grating in the optical fiber…” should read “drawing an optical fiber; and inscribing a grating in the optical fiber…”
In Claim 8, the phrase “and/or a fiber drawing parameter” should read “and/or the fiber drawing parameter”.
In Claim 9, the phrase “and/or a fiber drawing parameter” should read “and/or the fiber drawing parameter”.
In Claim 16, the phrase “An optical fiber with inscribed grating” should read “An optical fiber with an inscribed grating”. Furthermore, the phrase “drawing an optical fiber; inscribing a grating in the optical fiber…” should read “drawing an optical fiber; and inscribing a grating in the optical fiber…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In Claim 2, the phrase “…guiding the optical fiber in a non-slipping mode…” is interpreted to mean that the optical fiber is guided such that deviation of the fiber from an intended path of movement is limited or lessened.
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.
Claims 4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “…the position…of a fiber Bragg grating…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the position…of a fiber Bragg grating” in this claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the position…” as “a position…”
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the limitation "selecting and/or tuning a frequency of the laser". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the laser” in this claim. Claim 1, from which Claim 8 depends, recites “coherent radiation source”, but not “laser”. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the coherent radiation source of Claim 1 as being a laser.
Regarding Claims 9-13, these claims are rejected by virtue of ultimately depending from Claim 8 (rejected as above).
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites the limitation "the fiber length and/or drawing detecting means". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “fiber length detecting means” and “drawing detecting means” in this claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets "the fiber length and/or drawing detecting means" as included in Claim 1, serving as means for capturing information regarding the length of the fiber and/or the drawing fiber speed and/or a fiber drawing parameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103 - foreword
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
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 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20150160409A1 to Lai et. al. (hereinafter “Lai”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lai teaches a method for producing an optical fiber with inscribed grating (see Lai, paragraphs [0023-0024]), the method comprising: drawing an optical fiber (see Lai, paragraphs [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 (see Lai, paragraphs [0023-0024]; 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 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] or [0064]; drawing fiber speed (“fibre translation speed”) is used in controlling said inscribing (e.g., signal for triggering regenerative amplifier of pulse laser system), and in order to assist accuracy of focusing a pulse laser beam onto the fiber, the translation speed of the fiber is monitored).
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 Lai, 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 8, Lai further teaches that controlling comprises selecting and/or tuning a frequency of the laser 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/tuning of laser frequency based on drawing fiber speed).
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 (see Lai, paragraphs [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 (see Lai, paragraphs [0023-0024]; 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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of US20060133728A1 to Biyikli et. al. (hereinafter Biyikli).
Lai is silent on controlling comprising adjusting, for said inscribing, a Talbot interferometer to a desired Bragg wavelength. Lai teaches the adjustment of other equipment, such as a laser shutter, to achieve a desired Bragg wavelength (see Lai, paragraph [0034]).
However, 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 Lai and the Talbot interferometer taught in Biyikli were art-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 in view of WO2015/135918A1 to Van Der Ende (hereinafter “Van Der Ende”).
Lai teaches a marker for providing marking on the optical fiber, but is silent on providing marking on the optical fiber based on the information from the fiber length and/or drawing detecting means, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTON SMITH-FRANK whose telephone number is (703)756-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm (EST).
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 on (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.
/Q.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights