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
Applicant's amendment filed on 3/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 16-18, and 21-22 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 4, 8-9, 13-15, and 20 are as previously presented. Claims 24-27 have been added. See Claim Objections below regarding claim 23.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 11/13/2025 objections to the drawings.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 11/13/2025 objections to claims 16 and 18.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 11/13/2025 rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding “a laser treatment”. However, this amendment introduces a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 16, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) below.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 11/13/2025 rejection of claims 5-6, 10, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding antecedent issues.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 11/13/2025 rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding “…as measured by a confocal microscope”.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 11/13/2025 rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 17-18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the respective, previously set-forth 11/13/2025 rejections of claims 5, 8-10, 13-16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103, wherein the independent claims have been amended to further require “…wherein the laser beam…has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2”.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18, 20-22, and 24-28 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 10, and 17 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the previously set-forth 11/13/2025 rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding “a fictive temperature” is persuasive, thus the rejection is withdrawn [p. 8: “Applicant also respectfully submits that the term "fictive temperature" is a term that one of ordinary skill in the art would know. In particular, "fictive temperature" is a parameter in glass science that characterizes the structural state of a glass, representing the temperature at which a glass's structure would be in equilibrium if cooled rapidly. Unlike the glass transition temperature, fictive temperature maps the non-equilibrium glassy state to the equilibrium liquid line, with higher fictive temperatures indicating a less dense, faster-cooled structure.”].
Applicant’s argument regarding the respective, previously set-forth 11/13/2025 rejections of claims 1, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), and 35 U.S.C. 103 [see pp. 8-13] have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, specifically “…a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2”.
Claim Objections
Newly added claims 24-28 are objected to because the numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). In this case, it seems “23” has been skipped. Misnumbered claim 24 should be renumbered 23. Misnumbered claim 25 should be renumbered 24. Misnumbered claim 26 should be renumbered 25. Misnumbered claim 27 should be renumbered 26. Misnumbered claim 28 should be renumbered 27.
In view of the amendment to claim 10, which now recites “…emitting a laser beam from the laser onto the optical fiber to provide a laser polishing treatment…” it seems amended dependent claim 16, which still recites “…wherein the end face has a radius of…after undergoing the laser treatment” should have been further amended to similarly recite “…wherein the end face has a radius of…after undergoing the laser polishing treatment” and will be interpreted as so to avoid any antecedent issues.
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(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Woodward discloses:
A laser polishing apparatus [para. 0020: “FIG. 1 is a schematic representation of a system applying the method of laser polishing a connectorized optical fiber, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.”] comprising:
a laser emitting a laser beam [para. 0038: “Referring back to FIG. 1, a laser beam 30 from a laser 32 (e.g., Universal Laser Systems ULR10 OEM CO2 laser) is directed generally perpendicular to the end face 21 of the optical fiber 20”];
a focusing lens that redirects the laser beam [para. 0038: “In the illustrated embodiment, the laser beam is focused by a lens 34 (e.g., a ThorLabs 75 mm focal length ZnSe plano-convex lens).”],
the focusing lens having a focus [para. 0039: “Referring also to FIG. 4, the fiber end face 21 is positioned away from the focus 35 of the laser beam 30, so that the spot size 37 of the laser beam 30 is significantly larger than the bare optical fiber diameter (e.g., a spot size several times the diameter of the bare fiber or fiber end face)”];
a connector comprising an optical fiber received within a ferrule [para. 0033: “Referring to the schematic illustration of FIG. 1, the connectorized optical fiber cable 22 includes a length of optical fiber 20 fixedly mounted in a metal ferrule 10.”],
the optical fiber having an end face and an optical fiber diameter [fig. 1: fiber end face 21];
wherein the connector is spaced apart from the focusing lens by a distance to space the end face from the focus such that the laser beam has a beam diameter, wherein the beam diameter and the optical fiber diameter have a ratio ranging between 1:1 and 10:1 [Woodward teaches spacing the connector and the lens apart (see fig. 1) such that their respective diameters have an exemplary ratio of 7:1 within 1:1 and 10:1, and an overlapping range of 2:1 to 20:1; para. 0039: “As illustrated in FIG. 4, the laser beam spot size 37 on the fiber end face is 850 microns, which is about 7 times larger than the 125 microns diameter of the bare optical fiber (diameter of core and cladding only). Preferably, without limitation, the spot size may be 2 to 20 times larger than the end face diameter.”]; and
wherein the laser beam provides a laser polishing treatment of the end face of the optical fiber [para. 0012: “The present invention provides a novel method of forming a connectorized optical fiber cable, including a process of laser polishing the end face of a connectorized optical fiber. The laser polishing process in accordance with the present invention provides an effective, efficient and reliable approach to finishing optical fiber end faces to achieve acceptable surface geometries and surface properties (e.g., smoothness).”];
However, although Woodward discloses an average power density incident on the fiber end face [para. 0040: “…an average power density of 15 W/mm2 incident onto the fiber end face 21 (and the ferrule end face 11)”], Woodward does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2.
Carberry, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0002: “The disclosure relates generally to optical fibers and more particularly to methods and systems to form an optical surface on an end portion of at least one optical fiber.”], teaches a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 [i.e., that laser power is a result effective variable, and may be 250 J/cm2 or less; para. 0041: “Applicants have discovered that the optical surface may still be formed within 20 μm of the end face without the ferrule cracking due to thermal absorption and expansion when laser fluence is less than 250 J/cm2. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate the many different parameters of the laser cleaving system 50 that may be varied to achieve the desired laser fluence, such as the power of the laser 52, number of pulses, duration or exposure time of each pulse, size of a beam spot on the end face 34 of the ferrule 12 (discussed below), etc. In some embodiments, laser fluence is less than 100 J/cm2, or even less than 20 J/cm2, or even lower, such as less than 10 J/cm2. The low laser fluence may mean significantly lower power requirements and/or faster processing times compared to conventional approaches, which in turn may reduce the costs associated with the laser cleaving system 50.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Woodward such that the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 since Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced.
Regarding claim 4, Woodward in view of Carberry discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 1.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein the laser beam has a duty cycle ranging between 5% and 95% [i.e., 60%; para. 0040: “The 60% duty cycle resulted in an average output power of 8.5 W corresponding to an average power density of 15 W/mm2 incident onto the fiber end face 21 (and the ferrule end face 11).”].
Regarding claim 6, Woodward in view of Carberry discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 1.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein emitting the laser beam comprises emitting the laser beam in a burst period, wherein the burst period has a frequency ranging between 1 Hz and 200 kHz [i.e., 10 kHz; para. 0040: “In one embodiment, the laser 32 has an output of 10 W, which is operated in a pulsed mode at a frequency of 10 kHz and a pulse duration of 60 μs with an exposure time of 2 s (total span of exposure).”].
Regarding claim 7, Woodward in view of Carberry discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 1.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein the end face has a radius of curvature ranging between 100 microns and 10 mm after undergoing the laser polishing treatment [i.e., 8.82 mm; para. 0050: “Post-laser polish radius of curvature of fiber end face=8.82 mm”].
Regarding claim 24, Woodward in view of Carberry discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 1.
Woodward as modified by Carberry further discloses:
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 150 J/cm2 [Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced].
Regarding claim 25, Woodward in view of Carberry discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 1.
Woodward as modified by Carberry further discloses:
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 80 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 [Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced].
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hartkorn (US 20140346693 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Woodward in view of Carberry discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 1.
However, although Woodward discloses an exemplary exposure time of 2 seconds [para. 0040: “…an exposure time of 2 s (total span of exposure)”], Woodward does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the laser has an exposure time ranging between 1 microsecond and 1 second.
Hartkorn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an example wherein a laser has an exposure time of about 1 second [para. 0032: “In an example, laser 32 outputs laser beam 30 having a total power in the range from 5 W to 50 W, focusing lens 36 has an F/# of about 10, the distance d1 is about 300 .mu.m, and the exposure time is about 1 second.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Woodward such that the laser has an exposure time ranging between 1 microsecond and 1 second since Hartkorn teaches wherein a laser has an exposure time of about 1 second, and furthermore, since both Hartkorn [para. 0032: “The exposure time necessary to form bulbous tip 44 depends on the F/# of focusing lens 36, the distance d1 from fiber end 14 to focus F1 and the amount of power in laser beam 30 at the fiber end. The parameters needed to form bulbous tip 44 so that it has a substantially spherical shape can be determined empirically.”] and Woodward [para. 0040: “Other power setting, duty cycle and exposure time may be applied. It is preferred that the power of the laser beam is chosen such that the temperature at the fiber end face/tip is maintained between the temperature at which the fiber material softens (glass transition temperature), and the temperature at which the fiber evaporates/vaporizes.”] teach that exposure time is a result effective variable.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osborne (US 20040047587 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Woodward in view of Carberry discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 1.
However, while Woodward discloses that the focusing lens is a spherical lens [i.e., plano-convex], Woodward does not disclose:
wherein the focusing lens is an aspheric lens.
Osborne, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the known structure of aspheric lenses as an equivalent element to spherical lenses [para. 0019: “The optical transfer from the source to the fibre or waveguide is often accomplished using micro-optics inserted between the two components as shown in FIG. 2(c). The production and alignment, assembly and subsequent permanent fixturing of these discrete components is problematic. For reasons of availability and ease of alignment, the lenses are often spherical and symmetric, although it is clear that aspheric, asymmetric lenses would provide superior performance.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Woodward such that the focusing lens is an aspheric lens since Osborne teaches that aspheric lenses provide superior performance [para. 0019: “…it is clear that aspheric, asymmetric lenses would provide superior performance”].
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1) and Osborne (US 20040047587 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bickham (US 20210373239 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Woodward in view of Carberry and Osborne discloses the laser polishing apparatus of claim 8.
However, although Woodward teaches that the laser beam shape is not limited to a Gaussian beam shape [para. 0041: “While the illustrated embodiment applies a laser beam having a Guassian beam shape, non-Gaussian beam shape such as a flat top, super Gaussian, or necklace beam shapes could be applied without departing from the scope and spirit of the present invention.”], Woodward does not explicitly disclose:
further including at least one axicon lens spaced from the aspheric lens.
Bickham, in the same field of endeavor, teaches using an axicon lens [108A] spaced apart from a focusing lens [108B, 108C] to shape a Gaussian beam to a Bessel beam [para. 0056: “Laser beam 120 then proceeds through a series of lenses or optics 108 that are controlled by a translation stage 122. As shown in FIG. 1, lenses 108 include an axicon lens 108A, a convex lens 108B, and an objective lens 108C. Lenses 108 are configured to create a Bessel beam 109 and focus Bessel beam 109 onto an optical fiber array 124”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Woodward and Osborne such that at least one axicon lens is spaced from the aspheric lens since Woodward teaches applying non-Gaussian beam shapes, and Bickham teaches an axicon lens spaced apart from a focusing lens [fig. 1] to change a shape of a laser beam.
Claim(s) 10, 13, 15-16, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1) and Lohse (US 20180335580 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Woodward discloses:
A method of laser polishing an optical fiber having an end face [para. 0012: “The present invention provides a novel method of forming a connectorized optical fiber cable, including a process of laser polishing the end face of a connectorized optical fiber. The laser polishing process in accordance with the present invention provides an effective, efficient and reliable approach to finishing optical fiber end faces to achieve acceptable surface geometries and surface properties (e.g., smoothness).”], the method comprising:
placing the optical fiber onto a stage within a laser polishing apparatus [para. 0038: “The ferrule 10 may be supported on a stage 29 (schematically shown in FIG. 1) for aligning the fiber end face 21 to the laser beam 30.”], the laser polishing apparatus comprising:
a laser [para. 0038: “Referring back to FIG. 1, a laser beam 30 from a laser 32 (e.g., Universal Laser Systems ULR10 OEM CO2 laser) is directed generally perpendicular to the end face 21 of the optical fiber 20”];
a focusing lens having a focus [para. 0038-39: “In the illustrated embodiment, the laser beam is focused by a lens 34 (e.g., a ThorLabs 75 mm focal length ZnSe plano-convex lens)... Referring also to FIG. 4, the fiber end face 21 is positioned away from the focus 35 of the laser beam 30, so that the spot size 37 of the laser beam 30 is significantly larger than the bare optical fiber diameter (e.g., a spot size several times the diameter of the bare fiber or fiber end face)”]; and
a connector comprising the optical fiber and a ferrule housing the optical fiber [para. 0033: “Referring to the schematic illustration of FIG. 1, the connectorized optical fiber cable 22 includes a length of optical fiber 20 fixedly mounted in a metal ferrule 10.”];
wherein the end face of the optical fiber is spaced from the focusing lens by a distance to space the end face from the focus such that the laser beam has a beam diameter, wherein the beam diameter and the optical fiber diameter have a ratio ranging between 1:1 and 10:1 [Woodward discloses an exemplary ratio of 7:1 within 1:1 and 10:1, and an overlapping range of 2:1 to 20:1; para. 0039: “As illustrated in FIG. 4, the laser beam spot size 37 on the fiber end face is 850 microns, which is about 7 times larger than the 125 microns diameter of the bare optical fiber (diameter of core and cladding only). Preferably, without limitation, the spot size may be 2 to 20 times larger than the end face diameter.”];
protruding the optical fiber from the ferrule [para. 0007: “After positioning the fiber and before polishing, the epoxy is cured for about twenty-four hours. An end portion of the fiber that protrudes from the ferrule and cured epoxy is broken off close to the end face of the ferrule. A small portion of the fiber, after being broken off, protrudes from the end face of the ferrule and is firmly supported by the cured epoxy.”];
emitting a laser beam from the laser onto the optical fiber to provide a laser polishing treatment onto the end face of the optical fiber [i.e., polishing; para. 0007]; and
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between
However, Woodward does not explicitly disclose:
retracting at least a portion of the optical fiber into the ferrule;
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2.
Carberry, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0002: “The disclosure relates generally to optical fibers and more particularly to methods and systems to form an optical surface on an end portion of at least one optical fiber.”], teaches a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 [i.e., that laser power is a result effective variable, and may be 250 J/cm2 or less; para. 0041: “Applicants have discovered that the optical surface may still be formed within 20 μm of the end face without the ferrule cracking due to thermal absorption and expansion when laser fluence is less than 250 J/cm2. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate the many different parameters of the laser cleaving system 50 that may be varied to achieve the desired laser fluence, such as the power of the laser 52, number of pulses, duration or exposure time of each pulse, size of a beam spot on the end face 34 of the ferrule 12 (discussed below), etc. In some embodiments, laser fluence is less than 100 J/cm2, or even less than 20 J/cm2, or even lower, such as less than 10 J/cm2. The low laser fluence may mean significantly lower power requirements and/or faster processing times compared to conventional approaches, which in turn may reduce the costs associated with the laser cleaving system 50.”]
Lohse, in the same field of endeavor, teaches retracting a portion of an optical fiber into a ferrule [para. 0017: “FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view of a ferrule according to FIGS. 3 and 4, but with the terminal end of a bare optical fiber segment retracted rearward between front and rear ends of the ferrule”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Woodward such that it includes retracting at least a portion of the optical fiber into the ferrule since Lohse teaches that this creates a recess suitable for receiving a polymeric material [para. 0017: “FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view of a ferrule according to FIGS. 3 and 4, but with the terminal end of a bare optical fiber segment retracted rearward between front and rear ends of the ferrule to define a recess suitable for receiving a polymeric material”]; and such that the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 since Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced.
Regarding claim 13, Woodward in view of Carberry and Lohse discloses the method of claim 10.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein the laser beam has a duty cycle ranging between 5% and 95% [i.e., 60%; para. 0040: “The 60% duty cycle resulted in an average output power of 8.5 W corresponding to an average power density of 15 W/mm2 incident onto the fiber end face 21 (and the ferrule end face 11).”].
Regarding claim 15, Woodward in view of Carberry and Lohse discloses the method of claim 10.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein emitting the laser beam comprises emitting the laser beam in a burst period, wherein the burst period has a frequency ranging between 1 Hz and 200 kHz [i.e., 10 kHz; para. 0040: “In one embodiment, the laser 32 has an output of 10 W, which is operated in a pulsed mode at a frequency of 10 kHz and a pulse duration of 60 μs with an exposure time of 2 s (total span of exposure).”].
Regarding claim 16, Woodward in view of Carberry and Lohse discloses the method of claim 10.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein the end face has a radius of curvature ranging between 100 microns and 10 mm after undergoing the laser treatment [i.e., 8.82 mm; para. 0050: “Post-laser polish radius of curvature of fiber end face=8.82 mm”].
Regarding claim 26, Woodward in view of Carberry and Lohse discloses the method of claim 10.
Woodward as modified by Carberry further discloses:
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 150 J/cm2 [Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced].
Regarding claim 27, Woodward in view of Carberry and Lohse discloses the method of claim 10
Woodward as modified by Carberry further discloses:
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 80 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 [Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced].
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1) and Lohse (US 20180335580 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hartkorn (US 20140346693 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Woodward in view of Carberry and Lohse discloses the method of claim 10.
However, although Woodward discloses an exemplary exposure time of 2 seconds [para. 0040: “…an exposure time of 2 s (total span of exposure)”], Woodward does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the laser has an exposure time ranging between 1 microsecond and 1 second.
Hartkorn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an example wherein a laser has an exposure time of about 1 second [para. 0032: “In an example, laser 32 outputs laser beam 30 having a total power in the range from 5 W to 50 W, focusing lens 36 has an F/# of about 10, the distance d1 is about 300 .mu.m, and the exposure time is about 1 second.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Woodward such that the laser has an exposure time ranging between 1 microsecond and 1 second since Hartkorn teaches wherein a laser has an exposure time of about 1 second, and furthermore, since both Hartkorn [para. 0032: “The exposure time necessary to form bulbous tip 44 depends on the F/# of focusing lens 36, the distance d1 from fiber end 14 to focus F1 and the amount of power in laser beam 30 at the fiber end. The parameters needed to form bulbous tip 44 so that it has a substantially spherical shape can be determined empirically.”] and Woodward [para. 0040: “Other power setting, duty cycle and exposure time may be applied. It is preferred that the power of the laser beam is chosen such that the temperature at the fiber end face/tip is maintained between the temperature at which the fiber material softens (glass transition temperature), and the temperature at which the fiber evaporates/vaporizes.”] teach that exposure time is a result effective variable.
Claim(s) 17-18, 20, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1) and
Regarding claim 17,
Woodward discloses:
A laser-polished optical fiber [para. 0020: “FIG. 1 is a schematic representation of a system applying the method of laser polishing a connectorized optical fiber, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.”] comprising:
an optical fiber having a fiber end face and fiber edges contacting the fiber end face at an interface [see fig. 1, showing fiber end face 21 contacting adjacent sidewalls (i.e., fiber edges) of optical fiber 20; para. 0033: “Referring to the schematic illustration of FIG. 1, the connectorized optical fiber cable 22 includes a length of optical fiber 20 fixedly mounted in a metal ferrule 10.”],
wherein glass [i.e., the particular fictive temperature of glass comprising the optical fiber] and
the fiber end face has a radius of curvature between 100 microns and 10 mm as measured by a confocal microscope [i.e., 8.82 mm; para. 0050: “Post-laser polish radius of curvature of fiber end face=8.82 mm”];
wherein the optical fiber is polished by a laser apparatus comprising: a laser emitting a laser beam [para. 0038: “Referring back to FIG. 1, a laser beam 30 from a laser 32 (e.g., Universal Laser Systems ULR10 OEM CO2 laser) is directed generally perpendicular to the end face 21 of the optical fiber 20”],
However, Woodward does not explicitly disclose:
wherein glass of the fiber end face has a fictive temperature greater than glass of the fiber at a depth of 10 mm into the optical fiber from the end face;
wherein the laser beam has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2.
Carberry, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0002: “The disclosure relates generally to optical fibers and more particularly to methods and systems to form an optical surface on an end portion of at least one optical fiber.”], teaches a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 [i.e., that laser power is a result effective variable, and may be 250 J/cm2 or less; para. 0041: “Applicants have discovered that the optical surface may still be formed within 20 μm of the end face without the ferrule cracking due to thermal absorption and expansion when laser fluence is less than 250 J/cm2. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate the many different parameters of the laser cleaving system 50 that may be varied to achieve the desired laser fluence, such as the power of the laser 52, number of pulses, duration or exposure time of each pulse, size of a beam spot on the end face 34 of the ferrule 12 (discussed below), etc. In some embodiments, laser fluence is less than 100 J/cm2, or even less than 20 J/cm2, or even lower, such as less than 10 J/cm2. The low laser fluence may mean significantly lower power requirements and/or faster processing times compared to conventional approaches, which in turn may reduce the costs associated with the laser cleaving system 50.”]
Ono, in the similar field of endeavor of laser polishing [para. 0022: “As a result of intensive studies to attain the above described object, the present inventors have found that by irradiating, with an excimer laser having a specific wavelength region at a specific fluence, the optical surface having a concave defect can be smoothed while minimizing the adverse effect by the irradiation with an excimer laser, such as worsening of flatness or deterioration in terms of surface roughness.”] glass [para. 0055: “The optical component for EUVL, to which the smoothing method of the present invention is applied, is made of a silica glass…”], teaches minimizing adverse effects such as worsening flatness/surface roughness by arranging different fictive temperatures in the optical component [para. 0043: “Also, the present invention provides an optical component for EUVL obtained by the method of the smoothing method of the present invention comprising irradiating only an optical surface, composed of a surface layer containing the optical surface, a surface layer containing the back surface, and the remaining inside part, wherein the surface layer containing the optical surface has a fictive temperature that is higher by 30° C. or more than fictive temperatures of the surface layer containing the back surface and of the remaining inside part.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the laser-polished optical fiber of Woodward such that glass of the fiber end face has a fictive temperature greater than glass of the fiber at a depth of 10 mm into the optical fiber from the end face, since Ono teaches this difference minimizes adverse effects, and further that while the optical component may have different thicknesses [i.e., corresponding to the depth in the optical fiber, e.g., a thickness of 6.3 mm; para. 0062], thickness of the target and conventional laser parameters are all known, interrelated, and predictable result effective variables [i.e., a depth of 10 mm is suggested by the prior art; paras. 0068-70]; and such that the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 20 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 since Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced.
Regarding claim 18, Woodward in view of Carberry and Ono discloses the laser-polished optical fiber of claim 17.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein the fiber edges have a radius of curvature at the interface [i.e., Woodward teaches the optical fiber end face and fiber edges (i.e., side walls) contact each other at an interface (see fig. 1), and thus has radius of curvature at the interface].
Examiner notes that the typical cylindrical shape of an optical fiber results in a corresponding radius of curvature along the side walls/fiber edges, including at any interface with an end face, the radius of curvature at least corresponding to a radius of the cylindrical optical fiber.
Regarding claim 20, Woodward in view of Carberry and Ono discloses the laser-polished optical fiber of claim 17.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein the optical fiber is polished by a laser apparatus comprising: a laser emitting a laser beam [para. 0038: “Referring back to FIG. 1, a laser beam 30 from a laser 32 (e.g., Universal Laser Systems ULR10 OEM CO2 laser) is directed generally perpendicular to the end face 21 of the optical fiber 20”],
wherein the laser beam has a duty cycle ranging between 5% and 95% [i.e., 60%; para. 0040: “The 60% duty cycle resulted in an average output power of 8.5 W corresponding to an average power density of 15 W/mm2 incident onto the fiber end face 21 (and the ferrule end face 11).”].
Regarding claim 22, Woodward in view of Carberry and Ono discloses the laser-polished optical fiber of claim 17.
Woodward further discloses:
wherein emitting the laser beam comprises emitting the laser beam in a burst period, wherein the burst period has a frequency ranging between 1 Hz and 200 kHz [i.e., 10 kHz; para. 0040: “In one embodiment, the laser 32 has an output of 10 W, which is operated in a pulsed mode at a frequency of 10 kHz and a pulse duration of 60 μs with an exposure time of 2 s (total span of exposure).”].
Regarding claim 28, Woodward in view of Carberry and Ono discloses the laser-polished optical fiber of claim 17.
Woodward as modified by Carberry further discloses:
wherein the laser beam emitted by the laser has a laser fluence ranging between 80 J/cm2 and 200 J/cm2 [Carberry teaches laser fluence of 250 J/cm2 or less, wherein by optimizing laser fluence costs can be reduced].
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward (US 20160187592 A1) in view of Carberry (US 20180031770 A1) and Lohse (US 20180335580 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hartkorn (US 20140346693 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Woodward in view of Carberry and Ono discloses the laser-polished optical fiber of claim 17.
However, although Woodward discloses an exemplary exposure time of 2 seconds [para. 0040: “…an exposure time of 2 s (total span of exposure)”], Woodward does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the laser has an exposure time ranging between 1 microsecond and 1 second.
Hartkorn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an example wherein a laser has an exposure time of about 1 second [para. 0032: “In an example, laser 32 outputs laser beam 30 having a total power in the range from 5 W to 50 W, focusing lens 36 has an F/# of about 10, the distance d1 is about 300 .mu.m, and the exposure time is about 1 second.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Woodward such that the laser has an exposure time ranging between 1 microsecond and 1 second since Hartkorn teaches wherein a laser has an exposure time of about 1 second, and furthermore, since both Hartkorn [para. 0032: “The exposure time necessary to form bulbous tip 44 depends on the F/# of focusing lens 36, the distance d1 from fiber end 14 to focus F1 and the amount of power in laser beam 30 at the fiber end. The parameters needed to form bulbous tip 44 so that it has a substantially spherical shape can be determined empirically.”] and Woodward [para. 0040: “Other power setting, duty cycle and exposure time may be applied. It is preferred that the power of the laser beam is chosen such that the temperature at the fiber end face/tip is maintained between the temperature at which the fiber material softens (glass transition temperature), and the temperature at which the fiber evaporates/vaporizes.”] teach that exposure time is a result effective variable.
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 THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights