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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Thirteen (13) sheets of drawings were filed on December 21, 2022.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed May 12, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kuno merely refers to an optical cross-connect (OXC) architecture. In contrast to the current claims and the pending rejections, Kuno has not been shown to teach or suggest four multi-core fibers (i.e., a first multi-core fiber, a second multi-core fiber, a third multi-core fiber, and a fourth multi-core fiber)(Remarks Page 2).
The examiner disagrees.
Figure 1(b) depicts four multi-core fiber bundles (two incoming on the left and two outgoing on the right) to illustrate the architecture. The accompanying description teaches an (N x N) architecture, where (N) can represent any number of fibers.
Kuno further teaches “Fig. 1(b) shows an OXC architecture based… where the application to MCF (multi-core fiber) based networks is assumed.” (p. 2, under “II. OPTICAL CROSS-CONNECT CONFIGURATIONS”
Applicant argues Kuno has not been shown to teach or suggest that each of the four multi-core fibers comprise a first subset and a second subset (Remarks Page 2 and 3).
The examiner disagrees.
As detailed in the Office Action (Pages 4 and 5), Kuno discloses that each of the four fibers have a first and a second subset similar to what is depicted in applicants Figure 6a.
The "Fan-in/out" component takes the (MN) cores and distributes them into the internal switch fabric. This process requires grouping or "subsetting" the cores from each MCF to route them to different joint-switch modules.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See annotated Figure 1(b) below.
Applicant argues Kuno has not been shown to teach or suggest the four first subsets in the four multi-core fibers comprise a same quantity of cores (Remarks page 2 and 3).
The examiner disagrees.
Figure 1(b) and its accompanying text denote the number of cores using the single variable "(M)". Had the reference contemplated differing core counts between the fibers, distinct variables (such as (m1) and (m2)) would have been employed.
See annotated Figure 1(b) above.
Applicant argues Kuno has not been shown to teach or suggest the four second subsets in the four multi-core fibers comprise a same quantity of cores(Remarks page 2 and 3) .
The examiner disagrees.
Figure 1(b) and its accompanying text denote the number of cores using the single variable "(M)". Had the reference contemplated differing core counts between the fibers, distinct variables (such as (m1) and (m2)) would have been employed.
See annotated Figure 1(b) above.
Applicant argues that Kuno has not been shown to teach or suggest that "the first subset of the first multi-core fiber, the first subset of the second multi-core fiber, the first subset of the third multi-core fiber, and the first subset of the fourth multi-core fiber comprise a same quantity of cores; and the second subset of the first multi-core fiber, the second subset of the second multi-core fiber, the second subset of the third multi-core fiber, and the second subset of the fourth multi-core fiber comprise a same quantity of cores" as recited in amended claim 1. Tai has not been shown to, and does not, remedy at least this deficiency of Kuno (Remarks page 2 and 3).
The examiner disagrees.
See annotated Figure 1(b) and responses above.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High-Throughput and High-Port-Count Optical Cross Connects Using Flexible Waveband Routing (2020) by Kuno et al., hereafter Kuno in view of Tai (US6275322B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kuno discloses A multi-core fiber interleaver (Figure 2 and the accompanying descriptions describe Optical Cross-Connect (OXC) architecture for multicore fibers (MCF) that acts as an interleaver by grouping optical paths in bundled M-core fibers into "flexible wavebands), comprising: a first port, a second port, a third port, and a fourth port, respectively adapted to be coupled to a first multi-core fiber, a second multi-core fiber, a third multi-core fiber, and a fourth multi-core fiber (This architecture is illustrated in Figure 1(b)-(d) and Figure 2), wherein the first multi-core fiber, the second multi-core fiber, the third multi-core fiber, and the fourth multi-core fiber are multi-core fibers outside the multi-core fiber interleave (This architecture is illustrated in Figure 1(b)-(d) and Figure 2 with the multi-core fibers outside the interleaving portion), and wherein: a first subset of a plurality of first cores of the first multi-core fiber at the first port is coupled to a first subset of a plurality of second cores of the second multi-core fiber at the second port (Figure 1(b)) a second subset of the plurality of fourth cores of the fourth multi-core fiber at the fourth port is coupled to a second subset of the plurality of second cores of the second multi-core fiber at the second port (Figure 1(b)) and the first subsets of the first multi-core fibers, the first subset of the second multicore fiber, the first subset or the third multicore fiber, and the first subset of the fourth multicore fiber comprise a same quantity of cores (Figure 1(b) ) and its accompanying text denote the number of cores using the single variable "(M)". Had the reference contemplated differing core counts between the fibers, distinct variables (such as (m1) and (m2)) would have been employed); and the second subsets of the first multi-core fibers, the second subset of the second multicore fiber, the second subset of the third multicore fiber, and the second subset of the further multicore fiber comprise a same quantity of cores (Figure 1(b) illustrates 3 cores per subset the multicore fibers).
Kuno fails to teach, a first subset of a plurality of third cores of the third multi-core fiber at the third port is coupled to a first subset of a plurality of fourth cores of the fourth multi-core fiber at the fourth port; a second subset of the plurality of third cores of the third multi-core fiber at the third port is coupled to a second subset of the plurality of first cores of the first multi-core fiber at the first port. Therefore, Kuno fails teach a de-interleaving function.
Tai teaches interleaver and deinterleaver device for filtering optical signals (Abstract. FIG. 5 and accompanying description).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the architecture of Kuno to include a deinterleaver function in order to increase the bandwidth of an optical network. The motivation to combine arises from the need to improve optical networking flexibility. Kuno’s interleaver handles multiplexing (grouping) via MCFs. To enable a fully functional bi-directional transmission system (e.g., adding/dropping or separating wavelength channels), a de-interleaver is required. This combination would yield the claimed multi-core fiber interleaver/de-interleaver with the specific, claimed port-to-port and subset-to-subset core coupling, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
728
1480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further teaches the quantity of cores comprised in the first subset of a multi-core fiber is equal to the quantity of cores comprised in the second subset of the multi-core fiber (Figure 1(b) illustrates 3 cores per subset).
Regarding claim 3, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further discloses cores in a first subset and cores in a second subset in the same multicore fiber (Figure 1(b) illustrates 3 cores per subset the multicore fibers). Kuno fails to teach the first and second subsets of the same multicore fibers are located at alternate positions.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art arrangement the subset of the same multicore fibers in alternating positions in order to reduce inter-core crosstalk or optimize transmission. For the specific function of interleaving/deinterleaving the modern high-capacity transmission, in alternation or diagonal arrangement of core subset is a standard often necessary, design principle. Therefore, implementing the specific spatial arrangement in Kuno’s fiber is a design choice that yields predictable, desirable results.
Regarding claim 4, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further discloses cores in a first subset and cores in a second subset in the same multicore fiber(Figure 1(b) illustrates 3 cores per subset the multicore fibers).
Kuno fails to teach the first subsets and second subsets of the same multicore fibers are not adjacent to each other.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the subsets in non-adjacent position, to in minimize inter-core crosstalk and improve signal integrity. The specific geometric arrangement of subsets (e.g., alternating positions) represents a well-known, limited number of design alternatives, and selecting a non-adjacent configuration is a matter of routine optimization within the skill of the artisan to maximize performance.
Regarding claim 5 Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further discloses a sum of a quantity of cores in the first subset and a quantity of cores in the second subset of the same multi-core fiber is less than or equal to a total quantity of cores comprised in the same multi-core fiber. As illustrated in Figure 2(b), Kuno depicts a multi-core fiber containing a total of seven cores. Within this fiber, two subsets are defined, each containing three cores. The sum of these subsets is six, which is less than the total fiber capacity of seven cores.
Regarding claim 6, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further discloses the first subset of the plurality of first cores is fanned out at the first port, and is coupled, directly or by using a first auxiliary interleaving component, to the first subset of the plurality of second cores that is fanned out at the second port (Figure 2(b)); the second subset of the plurality of first cores is fanned out at the first port, and is coupled, directly or by using a third auxiliary interleaving component, to the second subset of the plurality of third cores that is fanned out at the third port (Figure 2(b)); and the second subset of the plurality of fourth cores is fanned out at the fourth port, and is coupled, directly or by using a fourth auxiliary interleaving component, to the second subset of the plurality of second cores that is fanned out at the second port (Figure 2(b)).
Kuno fails to disclose the first subset of the plurality of third cores is fanned out at the third port, and is coupled, directly or by using a second auxiliary interleaving component, to the first subset of the plurality of fourth cores that is fanned out at the fourth port. Therefore, failing to teach a de-interleaving function.
Tai teaches interleaver and deinterleaver device for filtering optical signals (Abstract. FIG. 5 and accompanying description).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the architecture of Kuno to include a deinterleaver function in order to increase the bandwidth of an optical network. The motivation to combine arises from the need to improve optical networking flexibility. Kuno’s interleaver handles multiplexing (grouping) via MCFs. To enable a fully functional bi-directional transmission system (e.g., adding/dropping or separating wavelength channels), a de-interleaver is required. This combination would yield the claimed multi-core fiber interleaver/de-interleaver with the specific, claimed port-to-port and subset-to-subset core coupling, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further discloses the first multi-core fiber and the fourth multi-core fiber comprise a same quantity of cores, and the second multi-core fiber and the third multi-core fiber comprise a same quantity of cores. As illustrated in Figure 2(b), Kuno depicts seven cores per fiber in each of the four multi-core fibers.
Regarding claim 8, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further discloses the first multi-core fiber, the second multi-core fiber, the third multi-core fiber, and the fourth multi-core fiber comprise a same quantity of cores, and the quantity of cores ranges from 2 to 30. As illustrated in Figure 2(b), Kuno depicts seven cores per fiber in each of the four multi-core fibers.
Regarding claim 9, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1, but fails to disclose at least one of the following: a fifth port, wherein a third subset of the plurality of first cores of the first multi-core fiber is adapted to be coupled out from the multi-core fiber interleaver by using the fifth port; or a sixth port, wherein a third subset of the plurality of fourth cores of the fourth multi-core fiber is adapted to be coupled out from the multi-core fiber interleaver by using the sixth port.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art increase the number of ports to accommodate higher density space-division multiplexing systems. As the number of cores in a multi-core fiber (MCF) increase, it is a well-known design requirement to scale the number of physical ports to ensure individual core subsets can be independently routed or processed. The use of interleaving to split a plurality of signals into multiple subsets is a standard technique in optical networking. Increasing the number of subsets from two to three (and thus ports from four to six) is a predictable variation of Kuno’s interleaving architecture to achieve finer granularity in signal distribution. Adding additional ports to an existing multi-core interleaver utilizes known optical components to achieve the predictable result of increased routing capacity.
Regarding Claim 21, Kuno/Tai teaches the multi-core interleaver of claim 1. Kuno further discloses the first multi-core fiber and the fourth multi-core fiber comprise a first quantity of cores, the second multi-core fiber and the third multi-core fiber comprise a second quantity of cores(FIG 1(b)). (M) is a variable used to represent an arbitrary number of cores within a single fiber).
Kuno/Tai fail to teach the first quantity of cores is different from the second quantity of cores.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to vary the quantities of cores between interconnected fibers due to the following principles: Different multi-core fibers are frequently designed with varying core counts ((M) cores) to balance signal dispersion, mitigate inter-core crosstalk, and optimize routing efficiency. In multi-core interleavers (or fan-in/fan-out devices) used for Space Division Multiplexing (SDM), it is standard practice to route or map disparate spatial channels through different fiber paths. When routing an arbitrary number of cores (M) (e.g., matching a 4-core fiber to a multi-core Erbium-doped fiber amplifier or a different transmission span), the input and output fibers will natively have different core quantities to facilitate signal sorting and interleaving. Relying on variable (M) to represent core arrays enables an optical engineer to scale channel capacities asymmetrically depending on whether the fiber is operating as an input/output terminal or part of the central transmission span. Therefore, modifying the core count across different sections of an interleaver to accommodate different quantities of spatial paths (M) constitutes standard design choices and optimization of network geometries that are routine in optical engineering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Rekaya et al (US11637631B2) see entire disclosure.
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 TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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 (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights