DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 03/23/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1-3 and 5- 20 have been amended. Regarding Claim 21: added.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in claims, specifically claims 1, 16 and 20, e.g. “based on the comparison, adjusting one or more of the fiber properties of a second optical fiber so that a peak bandwidth wavelength of the second optical fiber is greater than or equal to a first peak wavelength and less than or equal to a second peak wavelength, the second optical fiber being a single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut-off wavelength of about 1260 nm or less.”, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I): "Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language (e.g. based on the comparison, adjusting one or more of the fiber properties) specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For method, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (entire discloser devoted with classify or categorizing the optical fiber. In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function(e.g. based on the comparison, adjusting one or more of the fiber properties of a second optical fiber ), must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, i.e. about to fail. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV."
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-3 and 5-21 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-3 and 5-21 fall within category of process.
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5—15, 21
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of categorizing single mode optical fibers,.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method of categorizing single mode optical fibers, the method comprising:
determining one or more fiber properties of a first optical fiber, the first optical fiber being a single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut-off wavelength of about 1260 nm or less, and the fiber properties comprising at least one of (i) radius A of a centerline dip, (ii) depth B of the centerline dip, (iii) alpha value, (iv) core radius, (v) mode field diameter at 1310 nm, and (vi) zero dispersion wavelength;
calculating a peak bandwidth wavelength of the first optical fiber based on the one or more fiber properties; comparing the calculated peak bandwidth wavelength with a target peak bandwidth wavelength;
based on the comparison, determining if the first optical fiber meets a target modal
based on the comparison, adjusting one or more of the fiber properties of a second optical fiber so that a peak bandwidth wavelength of the second optical fiber is greater than or equal to a first peak wavelength and less than or equal to a second peak wavelength, the second optical fiber being a single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut-off wavelength of about 1260 nm or less.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determining one or more fiber properties of a first optical fiber [..], calculating [..]; [..] determining if the first optical fiber meets a target modal bandwidth” are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea),
For example, the limitations”based on the comparison, adjusting one or more of the fiber properties [..]” are mental step a (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The only additional element is “single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and a cable Cut-off wavelength of about 1260 nm or less first/ second optical fiber”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic optical fiber component and (field of use/ data gathering(in significant extra solution activity) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the “additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claim1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 is an additional element that is, i.e. optical fiber”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-15, 21
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-15 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-3 and 5-15, 21 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-3 and 5-15, 21 are a combination of mathematical steps with mental steps.
Regarding Claims 16-19
Exemplary claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea of categorizing single mode optical fibers,.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
16. A method of categorizing single mode optical fiber precursors, the method comprising:
determining a fiber property of a first optical fiber precursor, the first optical fiber precursor being a precursor to a single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut-off wavelength of about 1260nm or less;
a core portion of the first optical fiber precursor having a centerline dip, and the fiber property being a depth of the centerline dip of the core portion;
comparing the fiber property with a centerline dip threshold;
based on the comparison, determining if the first optical fiber precursor has a high probability of forming an optical fiber with a high modal bandwidth; and
based on the comparison, adjusting the depth of the centerline dip of a second optical fiber precursor so that a second optical fiber comprises a peak bandwidth wavelength of greater than or equal to a first peak wavelength and less than or equal to a second peak wavelength, the second optical fiber precursor being a precursor to the second optical fiber, and the second optical fiber being a single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut-off wavelength of about 1260 nm or less...
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “ determining a fiber property[..]; comparing the fiber property[..]; [..] determining if the first optical fiber precursor has a high probability o[..]; and adjusting the depth of the centerline dip of a second optical fiber precursor [..]. “are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea).
and comparing [..],based on the comparison, determining [..] are mental stepa (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 16 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The only additional element is “the first optical fiber precursor being a precursor to a single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut-off wavelength of about 1260nm or less ; a core portion of the first optical fiber precursor having a centerline dip, and the fiber property being a depth of the centerline dip of the core portion ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic optical fiber component with data gathering or field in use (insignificant extra solution activity)and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the “additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims16 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 16 is an additional element that is, i.e. first/ second optical fiber”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 17-19
Dependent claims 17-19 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-8 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 17-19 are a combination of mathematical steps with mental steps.
Regarding Claim 20
Exemplary claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea of categorizing single mode optical fibers,.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
20. A method of categorizing single mode optical fibers, the method comprising:
determining a relationship between peak bandwidth wavelength in a drawn first optical fiber and one or more fiber properties, the first optical fiber being a single mode optical fiber at about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut- off wavelength of about 1260 nm or less, and
the one or more fiber properties including at least one of (i) radius A of a centerline dip in the first optical fiber, (ii) depth B of the centerline dip in the first optical fiber, (iii) depth B of the centerline dip in a precursor to the first optical fiber, (iv) alpha value in the first optical fiber, (v) core radius in the first optical fiber, (vi) mode field diameter at 1310 nm in the first optical fiber, and (vii) zero dispersion wavelength in the first optical fiber; and
based on the relationship, determining if the optical fiber meets a target modalbandwidth; and
based on the determination, adjusting one or more of the fiber properties of a drawn second optical fiber so that a peak bandwidth wavelength of the second optical fiber is greater than or equal a first peak wavelength and less than or equal to a second peak wavelength, the second optical fiber being a single mode optical fiber at an operating wavelength of about 1310 nm and comprising a cable cut-off wavelength of about 1260 nm or less..
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “ determining a relationship between peak bandwidth wavelength in a drawn first optical fiber and one or more fiber properties[..]; determining if the optical fiber meets a target [..]; and adjusting one or more of the fiber properties of a drawn second optical fiber [..]”are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea),
and “based on the comparison, determining [..]” is mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 20 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The only additional element is “the one or more fiber properties including at least one of (i) radius A of a centerline dip in the first optical fiber, (ii) depth B of the centerline dip in the first optical fiber, (iii) depth B of the centerline dip in a precursor to the first optical fiber, (iv) alpha value in the first optical fiber, (v) core radius in the first optical fiber, (vi) mode field diameter at 1310 nm in the first optical fiber, and (vii) zero dispersion wavelength in the first optical fiber ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic optical fiber component with data gathering / field of use (extra solution activity)and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the “additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims16 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 20 is an additional element that is, i.e. first/ second”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 7-8.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because amended limitations further extended details of abstract idea only, i.e. a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). In conclusion, the “additional elements” amount to a generic component (i.e. optical fiber(first/second)) associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting a analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Chen et al. (US2021/0032153) disclose A standard single-mode fiber is designed to have a cable cut-off wavelength λ.sub.C below (i.e., less than) 1260 nm so the fiber supports only one mode at 1310 nm and supports a few modes at 850 nm..
b) Bickham et al. (US 2017/0146428) disclose the peak wavelength λ.sub.P is between 1260 nm and 1360 nm, such as between 1300 nm and 1320 nm. However, it should be understood that MMFs may be produced to have any reasonable peak wavelength λ.sub.P.
c) Bickham et al. (US 2013/0322837) disclose As used herein, the 1310 nm window is defined as the wavelength range from 1200 nm to 1400 nm, or a subset of this wavelength range. For example, from 1260 to 1400 nm, 1260 to 1360 nm, 1270 to 1350 nm, 1280 to 1340 nm or 1290 to 1330 nm (e.g., 1260 nm, 1290 nm, 1310 nm, 1330 nm, 1350 nm, 1370 nm, or 1400 nm).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights