Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Following a non-final action, applicant filed an amendment on 4/22/2026 in which claims 1, 2, and 4 are amended. Claims 1-13 are pending. Note the examiner of record has changed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires the fiber “having a cladding diameter different from at least one fiber coupled thereto.” This is added in the 4/22/2026 amendment and is not in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 1 requires the IWDM “having a first pigtail with a first cladding diameter and a second pigtail with a second cladding diameter different from the first cladding diameter.” This is added in the 4/22/2026 amendment and is not in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 1 requires “wherein at least one of the plurality of fiber couplings comprises a splice between fibers having substantially matched cladding diameters to reduce splice loss within the pluggable housing.” This is added in the 4/22/2026 amendment and is not in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 2 requires the housing “configured to contain the two-stage fiber amplification optical path with reduced fiber length.” This is added in the 4/22/2026 amendment and is not in the specification as originally filed. While the specification is clear that the housing contains the fiber amplification optical path, it does not show that this is done “with reduced fiber length.” As discussed below the scope of this limitation is also unclear.
Claim 4 requires that the Er doped coils “each having a cladding diameter selected to facilitate reduced bend radius within the pluggable housing.” This is added in the 4/22/2026 amendment and is not in the specification as originally filed. As discussed below the scope of this limitation is also unclear.
The remaining claims depend on the above and include the same problems.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 requires that the housing is “configured to contain the two-stage fiber amplification optical path with reduced fiber length.” It is not clear how it is “configured” to contain the fiber “with reduced fiber length.” It is also not clear what “reduced” means in this context; reduced as compared to what? This is also not found in the specification as filed as discussed above, therefore that is no help in determining the scope of the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected due to dependency on claim 2, thus including the same issue.
Claim 4 requires that the Er doped coils “each having a cladding diameter selected to facilitate reduced bend radius within the pluggable housing.” It is not clear what types of diameters would do this, i.e. what are the metes and bounds of the claim. It is also not clear what “reduced” means in this context; reduced as compared to what? This is also not found in the specification as filed as discussed above, therefore that is no help in determining the scope of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113382533 A (“CN ‘533”) in view of RP Photonics Encyclopedia, Tutorial: Fiber Amplifiers, Part 10: Multi-stage Fiber Amplifiers, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20221016131815/https://www.rp-photonics.com/tutorial_fiber_amplifiers10.html (“RP Photonics”)1, and further in view of US 2022/0069535 (“Cryan”), and further in view of US 2016/0370543 (“Ocampo”).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘533 discloses:
An optical L-band amplifier device, said amplifier device comprising:
a pluggable housing;
CN ‘533 is an L-band fiber amplifier. [n0008]. The housing can be plugged in and out, therefore it is pluggable. [n0014]. It is also QSFP compatible, Title, and that is pluggable.
a two-stage fiber amplification optical path, comprising ultra-high absorption fiber
CN ‘533 has an amplification optical path. [n0021]. It has a high absorption, of 40 dB/m. [n0024] (37 +/- 3), permitting shorter fiber to be used. The present application explains that ultra-high is greater than 40, so this touches the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claim and prior art ranges do not overlap but are merely close, particularly when they will be understood to have similar properties. MPEP 2144.05 I. The difference in absorption is not going to be a difference in kind, but a difference in degree. That is, higher absorption will not have some unexpected result.
CN ‘533 does not use two stage amplification. RP Photonics teaches that multi-stage amplification was well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use multi-stage amplification because it allows one to treat the different stages differently, as taught by RP Photonics. For example, the first stage may be a lower power pre-amplifier with higher efficiency and the second stage may be higher power with higher mode area, one can use different pumps with the different fibers, one can suppress ASE, minimize noise in the lower power first stage, and other advantages given.
having a cladding diameter different from at least one fiber coupled thereto;
CN ‘533 appears to use the same diameter fiber throughout its system. Cryan teaches that sometimes the erbium doped fiber might have a different diameter than the IWDM and/or isolator it is attached to. [0021], [0025], [0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that they are optimizing many different things in such a system, and may choose different diameters if it may help improve some performance in other areas.
an IWDM having a first pigtail with a first cladding diameter and a second pigtail with a second cladding diameter different from the first cladding diameter; and
CN ‘533 shows an IWDM. It does not show first and second pigtails having different cladding diameters. Cryan shows it was known in the art for a IWDM to have pigtails having different diameters. [0020]; [0026], [0031]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as this may be done to facilitate splicing with other components, as taught by Cryan.
a plurality of fiber couplings, each protected by a coating, wherein at least one of the plurality of fiber couplings comprises a splice between fibers
Fiber couplings are not shown in CN ‘533, but couplings between different fibers are of course known. Fibers will not just lay next to each other in space, they will have couplings to ensure that they match up. For example, Cryan teaches that an IWDM and EDFA may be connected by a fiber pigtail splice 345A, and the EDFA may likewise be spliced to its output at 345B. This is a fiber coupling. Ocampo further teaches that fibers may have a coating where they are spliced, i.e. at the coupling. See Fig. 2, coating 230 at splice 240, [0028]-[0029], [0019], [0007]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such a coating as it provides protection for the fiber at the splice point, as taught by Ocampo.
having substantially matched cladding diameters to reduce splice loss within the pluggable housing.
CN ‘533 generally seems to use the same cladding diameter throughout its system. Cryan further teaches that generally splicing will be more successful when similar fibers are used, such as the same cladding diameters. [0024]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for at least some of the splices in the system to be substantially the same cladding diameter to have more successful splicing.
Regarding claims 2-3, the CN ‘533 housing is MSA compliant and of the types claimed. [n0017].
Regarding claim 4, the fiber is erbium doped coil. [n0021], [n0030]. See claim 1 for two-stage, of course if it is two-stage there will be two coils. The diameter is the same as that of the present application, see claim 6 below, therefore it must be “selected to facilitate reduced bend radius within the pluggable housing” to the same extent as the present application.
Regarding claim 5, this precise diameter for the fiber is not shown. The fiber size including diameter affects numerous things in the system, including how much power the fiber can handle, how much pump light may be input, or bend radius. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the fiber size, as a result effective variable, through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 6, the fiber is 80 micrometer cladding diameter erbium-doped fiber. [n0024].
Regarding claim 7, the fiber has an absorption of 40dB per meter at a wavelength of 1530nm. [n0024]. This is not within but touches the claimed range, therefore it is deemed obvious. See similar discussion above re: claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is drawn to how the coating is applied, i.e. the method of making the device. This is therefore a product-by-process claim, which for patentability is not limited to how the device is made, only the device itself. MPEP 2113. The process step is therefore not given weight. To the extent that the steps imply some kind of structure, Ocampo teaches that the coating may be made of many different materials, including epoxy acrylates, which may be considered a type of glue. [0038]. They may be cured by various types of radiation, [0031], which will involve the application of at least some heat. Mercury and halogen lamps for example give off significant heat. To the extent these limitations should get weight and these teachings are not sufficient, the examiner takes Official Notice that it was known that coatings for fibers may be applied using glue and heat. Indeed, if it was not already known the claim would not be enabled, because applicant gave no explanation in the specification on how to do this, how to make or use the invention. There is no explanation of what kind of glue, where and how to apply it, how much heat to use, etc. To be clear, the examiner determines it is well known, so it is enabled.
Regarding claim 10, it is not disclosed that the coatings may withstand 150 kpsi proof tests. However, this is deemed to be an obvious optimization that would be pursued by a person skilled in the art. Applicant did not invent some new type of fiber coating that can withstand harsher environments than known coatings; indeed if it had done so it would surely not be enabled, as such little details are given for the coating, not even its specific composition or, as above, specific details on how it is made. Instead, the person skilled in the art would have reason to optimize their coating depending on the environment in which the fibers are intended to be employed. They would choose a coating that can withstand 150 kpsi proof tests in a more demanding application where they deem they might need the coating to be protective to that level.
Regarding claims 11-13, CN ‘533 has an uncooled pump with Bragg grating design. [n0027].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘533, RP Photonics, Cryan, and Ocampo as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN 216699066 U (“CN ‘066”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught as above, but it is not disclosed that the IWDM may have two isolators and WDMs in a single component. CN ‘066 shows that it was known in the art that an IWDM may have two isolators and WDMs in a single component. See Figs. 1-2 ([n0028]-[n0032]) for the general system, and Fig. 3 ([n0034]) for the specific device 30. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as it saves space in the situation where multiple inputs and outputs are being used, for example in applications where there are multiple fiber amplifiers, as taught by CN ‘066.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the response have been fully considered and the examiner agrees the amendments overcome the previously applied art. New rejections are presented in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
The Corning white paper shows 200 kpsi is a common fiber proof test.
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 James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
1 This URL from archive.org shows that the webpage https://www.rp-photonics.com/tutorial_fiber_amplifiers10.html was present and captured 10/16/2022.
Prosecution Insights