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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 04/25/23, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US 2018/0180818 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) disclose a composite optical fiber comprising of at least one primary waveguide (110), at least one secondary waveguide (115, the third material 125 forms an outer cladding which cooperates with the tapered second elongate region 115 as a secondary waveguide between the edge 105 and the main waveguide, [0035]), and the at least one secondary waveguide (115) surrounds or is within the primary waveguide (110) (the second elongate region 115 substantially encloses (envelops) the first elongate region 110, [0033]), wherein the composite optical fiber has a uniformly increasing diameter from one end (105) to another (figure 2A).
With respect to claim 13, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) disclose the composite optical fiber, wherein the longitudinal axes of the at least one primary waveguide (110) and the secondary waveguide (115) are parallel.
With respect to claim 14, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) disclose the composite optical fiber, wherein the longitudinal axes of the at least one primary waveguide (110) and the secondary waveguide (115) are coaxial.
With respect to claim 15, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) disclose the composite optical fiber, wherein the at least one primary waveguide (110) has a transverse cross- sectional shape that is at least one of circular, elliptical and annular (figures 1A, 1B).
With respect to claim 16, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) disclose the composite optical fiber, wherein the at least one secondary waveguide (115) has a transverse cross- sectional shape that is at least one of elliptical, circular and annular (figures 1A, 1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
10. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (as cited above) in view of Little (US 7359593 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) disclose a composite optical waveguide comprising at least one primary waveguide (110); a secondary waveguide (115, the third material 125 forms an outer cladding which cooperates with the tapered second elongate region 115 as a secondary waveguide between the edge 105 and the main waveguide, [0035]) surrounding or within the at least one primary waveguide (110) (the second elongate region 115 substantially encloses (envelops) the first elongate region 110, [0033]); tapering the composite optical waveguide towards an end (105) (figure 2A).
Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose the tapering of the composite waveguide causes a substantial transfer of the optical fundamental mode from one waveguide to another.
However, Little teaches an optical device including the tapering of the composite waveguide (column 5, lines 51-55) causes a substantial transfer of the optical fundamental mode from one waveguide to another (column 5, lines 51-59 and column 11, lines 6-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jiang et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Little) for the purpose of maximizing transformer efficiency and minimizing transformer length (column 6, lines 33-34).
With respect to claim 2, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except the tapering of the optical waveguide is slow and steady, so that the composite waveguide fulfils a length-scale and a weak-power criterion to avoid a coupling between the fundamental mode and higher-order modes.
However, Little teaches an optical device including the tapering of the optical waveguide is slow and steady, so that the composite waveguide fulfils a length-scale and a weak-power criterion to avoid a coupling between the fundamental mode and higher-order modes (column 6, lines 24-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jiang et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Little) for the purpose of maximizing transformer efficiency and minimizing transformer length (column 6, lines 33-34).
With respect to claim 3, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) discloses the composite optical waveguide, wherein the tapering includes at least one of a reduction in: a diameter of the composite waveguide (figure 1B), a diameter or a thickness of the primary waveguide (110) and a diameter or a thickness of the secondary waveguide (115).
With respect to claim 4, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except the tapering is substantially adiabatic with respect to the propagation of the optical mode.
However, Little teaches an optical device including the tapering is substantially adiabatic with respect to the propagation of the optical mode (column 11, lines 9-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jiang et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Little) for the purpose of maximizing transformer efficiency and minimizing transformer length (column 6, lines 33-34).
With respect to claim 5, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) discloses the composite optical waveguide, further including at least one further secondary waveguide (115) surrounded by or within the at least one primary waveguide (110).
With respect to claim 7, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) discloses the composite optical waveguide, wherein a refractive index of the at least one primary waveguide is less than a refractive index of the secondary waveguide (claim 18).
With respect to claim 8, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) discloses the composite optical waveguide, wherein the tapered composite optical waveguide is reciprocal with respect to an input end and an output end (figures 1A-1B).
With respect to claim 9, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except a minimum refractive index difference (DN-Dn) is maintained between the primary waveguide and the secondary waveguide, so that secondary waveguide is an effective waveguide for at least one of a fixed secondary end or a taper length.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jiang to form a minimum refractive index difference (DN-Dn) being maintained between the primary waveguide and the secondary waveguide, so that secondary waveguide is an effective waveguide for at least one of a fixed secondary end or a taper length as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 10, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2A) discloses the composite optical waveguide, wherein a beam intensity profile of the output optical mode is modified ([0068]).
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. and Little (as cited above), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gapontsev et al. (US 20110064095 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Jiang et al. (figures 1A-1B and 2) and Little substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except a refractive index profile between the at least one primary waveguide and the at least one secondary waveguide is at least one of a step-index and a graded-index.
However, Gapontsev et al. teach an optical device including a refractive index profile between the at least one primary waveguide and the at least one secondary waveguide is at least one of a step-index and a graded-index (figure 3 and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the above combination by including the above features (accordance with the teaching of Gapontsev) for the purpose of minimally distorting the Gaussian mode of the excited fundamental mode ([0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the composite optical waveguide, wherein at least two secondary waveguides are within a primary waveguide; whereby a single beam at the primary end is split into at least two corresponding beams outputted from a secondary end as set forth in claim 11.
13. Claim 17 is allowed.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 17. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a method of modifying a beam intensity profile of a laser beam by the steps of tapering both the primary waveguide and the secondary waveguide together such that a laser beam mode is caused to be transferred from one waveguide to the other along the tapered section; whereby a beam intensity profile of an input laser beam is modified, in combination with other recited limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Allan (US 6655857 B2) discloses a composite optical waveguide fiber. Liu (US 7643710 B1) discloses a coupling between a silicon photonic chip and an optical fiber. And Daniel (US 20190086611 A1) discloses a mode-converting optical coupler.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874