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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 lines 5 recites “the laser”, this limitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by US Patent Application Publication to Saito 2022/0283388A1 in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Barwicz 2016/0011372US and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Anderson 20140191427US as evidenced by the US Patent to Presby 5,076,654US.
In terms of Claim 1, Saito teaches A securing structure comprising (Figure 1): an optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a); a support body (Figure 1: 10) that comprises a first groove (Figure 1: within 100) that accommodates the optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a and 10); and a resin member (Figure 9: 400; Column 11, lines 30-40) that, inside the first groove (within 100) covers a boundary between a coating section (Figure 1: 303a and 302a; Figure 9: 400) of the optical fiber and a coating- removed section of the optical fiber (Figure 1: 301a) and secures the optical fiber to the support body (Figure 9: 400 secures fiber within 100), wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove partway along the first groove (Figure 1: groove formed by internal cavity within 100).
Saito does not teach a second groove that extends from a midway of the first groove in a direction intersecting the first groove away from the optical fiber; wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove into the second groove.
Barwicz does teach a first groove (Figure 1: 46) and a second groove (44) that extends from a midway of the first groove (Figure 2: 44 and 46) in a direction intersecting the first groove away from the optical fiber (Figure 2: 44 and 46); wherein the resin member spreads out of the first groove into the second groove (the groove 46 is capable of performing the function of holding excess adhesive from v-grooves 46 since it function as adhesive well [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Saito to have a second groove that extends from a midway of the first groove in a direction intersecting the first groove to hold excess adhesive that may overflow. This modification allows the grooves adhesive overflow to be properly managed ([0035]).
Saito / Barwicz do not teach a fiber within a groove wherein light propagating in the optical fiber and leaking out from the coating removed section propagate through the resin member in the groove.
Anderson does teach a fiber cable (Figure 5: 17) placed in a groove (Figure 5: housing ferrule 23) a MT ferrule ([0008] MT ferrule) having a resin (Figure 8: 15); wherein light propagating in the optical fiber (Figure 8: 25-4) and leaking out from the coating removed section propagate through the resin member in the groove (fibers 25-1 through 25-4, within 308 have the outer jacket 17 remove as shown by Figure 5), wherein light leaks from the bare fiber portions having only cladding and core (25—1) and onto the resin epoxy 15 to cure the epoxy ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resin and cladding of the fiber within the channel of Saito / Barwicz to allow light to leak into the resin area to cure the resin material. This modification allows the resin to fix the fiber into the channel and prevent it from moving out of the channel. The act of curing also creates a strong mechanical bond to ensure proper alignment is made while the fiber is in the channel (See Anderson [0048-0049]).
Saito does not teach wherein the resin member has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of a cladding of the optical fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Saito to have a refractive index of the adhesive resin to be lower than the refractive index of the cladding layer to ensure proper light confinement is made to the fiber to reduce optical loss or leakage. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
As for Claim 3, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson teaches securing structure according to claim 2, wherein Saito teaches the
As for Claim 5, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson teaches securing structure according to claim 2, wherein Saito teaches the first groove (100) is a u-shaped (Figure 1: 100)
As for Claim 6, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson teaches securing structure according to claim 1, wherein Saito teaches a recess that regulates a range in which the resin member spreads are disposed at a bottom of the first groove (Figure 6: groove 100 extend into 113a which contains a crack to control spreading at 120a).
As for Claim 7, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson teaches securing structure according to claim 2, wherein Saito teaches an optical device comprising the securing structure according to
As for Claim 8, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson teaches securing structure according to claim 2, wherein Saito teaches that comprises the securing structure according claim 1 (Figure 1 and Claim 1 rejection).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito / Barwicz / Anderson as applied to claims 7 and 8 above, and further in view of US Patent to Gapontsev 9,444,215US.
In regards to claim 9 and 10, Saito / Barwicz / Anderson teaches the device of claims 7 and 8.
Saito / Barwicz / Anderson do not teaches wherein further comprising: a glass block optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber, wherein the glass block has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber; and wherein the optical device further includes a glass block optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber, the glass block has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber, and the laser apparatus irradiates a workpiece with laser light via the glass block.
Gapontsev does teach a glass block (Figure 4: 20, that made of glass see Column 6, lines 1-10) optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber (Figure 1: 25), wherein the glass block (20) has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber (Figure 4: 20 and 25); and wherein the optical device further includes a glass block (Figure 4: 20) optically coupled to one end of the optical fiber (Figure 4: 20 and Figure 1: 25), the glass block (20) has a larger diameter than a diameter of the optical fiber (25), and the laser apparatus irradiates a workpiece (62) with laser light via the glass block (Column 7 lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Saito to include glass block wherein the glass block has a larger diameter than the fiber in order to deliver to high power laser light to work piece. The glass block is capable of handle high power thermal stress in order to house optical fiber and other optical components for high power laser applications that requires high thermal stress housing or platforms (Column 7, lines 1-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this instant the applicant has amended with the subject of previously cited in claim 4 into independent form of Claim 1.
The applicant argued that the rationale provided and suggested modification wherein “the resin member has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of a cladding of the optical fiber” would not be compatible with the prior art Anderson as suggested because Anderson indicates the resin refractive index and the cladding should be “similar” (Remarks Page 9).
The examiner respectfully disagrees because evidence by the prior art of Presby US Patent 5,076,654US which teaches a fiber (Column 2, lines 40-55) wherein a resin material made of epoxy is applied to cladding layer (Column 2, lines 40-60), the refractive index of resin epoxy is lower than the cladding in order to produce confinement. This is the same rationale and modification the examiner suggested in the case law rejection to previously claim 4 and now amended claim 1.
Anderson indicates although index of refraction between the epoxy resin and the cladding should be “similar”, however other epoxy can be used which may have different indexes profiles compared to what is used by Anderson ([0056]). The epoxy proposes by the examiner in the rejection to claim 4 does not break the invention of Anderson because the fiber used by Anderson is compatible with lower refractive index materials (See Claim 12). The epoxy used Presby supports the modification previously proposed by the examiner wherein the epoxy has a lower refractive index than the cladding and wherein the epoxy is UV curable. Hence, the proposed modification does not teach away, nor is it made in hindsight because the proposed modification is already known as evidenced by Presby.
The examiner has included the newly cited prior art to Presby to provide support for the previously grounds of rejection. The rejection made above is not in view of new grounds of rejection because the rationale and suggested modification in the previously cited rejection to claim 4 is maintained.
Newly added claims have 9 and 10 are rejected in view of the prior art to Gapontsev as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - Friday.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874