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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on November 19th, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objection(s) to the claims 4 and 17 have been withdrawn by the examiner in light of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) to claim 11 has been withdrawn by the examiner in light of the applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 1 is maintained, applicant’s amendment has been fully considered but does not render the claim patentable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 19th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “Independent claim 1 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Zinoviev in view of Kittaka… claim 1 has been amended to recite the features of canceled claim 4, which include, among other elements, ‘wherein a convex envelope of a cross-section of each fiber defines a regular polygon with n2 corners, wherein n2 is 3, 4, or 6’. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 is overcome and should be withdrawn because the prior art, whether considered separately or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest all elements of independent claim 1.”
The examiner acknowledges that Kittaka does not teach that the convex envelope of a cross-section of each fiber defines a regular polygon with n2 corners, n2 being 3, 4, or 6.
Kopp et al. teaches optical fibers meant for coupling, wherein each of the fibers in the coupler array define a cross section that is a regular polygon with 6 corners (Figure 3L, array 200L is composed of fibers/waveguides 204 which define a hexagon, a hexagon being a shape with 6 corners).
Di Teodoro similarly teaches a photonic crystal waveguide in Figure 8A, wherein each individual waveguiding element (fibers) defines either hexagons with n2 = 6 in element 857 as shown, or the bulk cross section as being n2 = 4, a quadrilateral, where the element 857 is treated as a single waveguiding unit and is used to define the larger shape.
The examiner additionally points to Cryan et al. (US 6598428 B1) as evidence to support the notion that alternative, polygonal fiber shapes are well known in the art, including those which meet the claim language (specifically hexagonal cross sections, or n2 = 6, as shown in Figure 3L of Kopp, and Figure 8A of Di Teodoro, but other shapes like quadrilaterals and triangles as well, as hinted in Figure 4, coupling elements 306 in Kopp et al).
Applicant states: “Kittaka fails to disclose ‘wherein a convex envelope of a cross-section of each fiber defines a regular polygon with n2 corners, wherein n2 is 3, 4, or 6” … the office has not asserted how one would arrive at the claimed subject matter or provided motivation for doing so.”
The examiner acknowledges that the prior art of record does not explicitly teach a regular polygonal cross section with n2 corners, n2 being in 3, 4, or 6. However, the examiner maintains that a skilled artisan finds such a fiber cross section to be an obvious design choice, and polygonal cross sections are well established in the art even within the prior art of record, despite not being disclosed for the individual fiber.
Di Teodoro et al. discloses that each fiber (individually) helps to define a regular polygon (a bulk shape) with n2 = 4 corners in Di Teodoro et al. The rejection has been updated to include Di Teodoro as part of the rejection of claim 1.
The examiner points to Cryan et al. (US 6598428 B1) to support the notion that alternative, polygonal fiber shapes are well known in the art, including those which meet the claim language (specifically hexagonal cross sections, or n2 = 6, as shown in Figure 3L, but a skilled artisan would find common polygonal shapes with n2 = 3 or 4, triangles and quadrilaterals, to be an obvious choice as well).
The only way hexagonal fibers can be closely bundled is in a bigger hexagon (Figure 3L). The shape of the individual fiber determines the bundle cross section when bundling fibers, else there would be arbitrary spacing between individual fibers. As such, the act of bundling fibers, which is ordinary practice in the art, necessarily leads to an emergent behavior in determining the cross-sectional shape of the bundle, based on the shape of the individual fibers. It is not only prima facie obvious, but an unavoidable result barring arbitrary spacing of the individual fibers to obtain another shape profile, which is not motivated by the instant application or the prior art.
Applicant states: “For example, the specification explains that one advantage of the disclosed configurations is that the fibers can be stacked against each other without gaps, minimizing loss of probe light at the input end (Application, [0024]), and that the photonic crystal waveguide maps the collected light to a slit-like output for collimation by an optical arrangement (Application, [0036]). Relying on Applicant's own teachings as the basis for combining prior art elements constitutes an impermissible application of hindsight under MPEP §2145.”
The examiner maintains that bundling fibers and minimizing the space between them is well known in the art, people have created tight bundles of objects for millennia wherein the spacing between individual bundle elements is minimized. Bundles of hay, bundles of straws, the bundle of cables under the Atlantic Ocean connecting North America to Europe – this is routine optimization of spacing for units within a bundle. That it is not explicitly stated as a motivation in the prior art is the consequence of being obvious to the skilled artisan.
The rejection to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are maintained as the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s amendments and arguments, but does not find them to be persuasive.
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(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinoviev et al. (US 20220003602 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20060140567 A1) and further in view of Kopp et al. (US 9817191 B2) and Di Teodoro et al. (US 7430352 B2).
Regarding claim 1;
Zinoviev et al. discloses a light transmission system (which guides light, ergo, a waveguide/lightguide) configured for an electromagnetic spectrometer (Abstract, light transmission system 100, 200 is configured for delivering light to a Raman spectrometer).
Zinoviev et al. further discloses that the waveguide is composed of a plurality of fibers (Figure 2, 3, optical fibers 220), each configured to convey light from an input end (Figure 3, receiving end 212) to an output end thereof (Figure 3, entrance surface 112 receives light from the bundle of fibers 210, which takes in light from receiving end 212), wherein:
A first convex envelope of a cross section of the waveguide at the input end defines a first shape (the fibers at end 212 are configured in a circular shape), and wherein:
A second convex envelope of a cross-section of the waveguide at the output end defines a slit shape (entrance surface 112 is a slit shape),
Zinoviev et al. does not teach an optical fiber, wherein the fiber is a photonic crystal fiber comprising a support structure of uniformly arranged channels within the support structure and wherein a convex envelope of a cross-section of each fiber defines a regular polygon with n2 corners, wherein n2 is 3, 4, or 6.
Kittaka et al. discloses a photonic crystal waveguide for guiding light (Figure 5 depicts the configuration for optical fiber 21 which comprises cladding 23 that contains core 22, which is a 2-D photonic crystal; paragraph 57).
Kittaka et al. also discloses an optical fiber (Figure 5, optical fiber 21) wherein the fiber is a photonic crystal fiber (paragraphs 2-4 disclose photonic crystal fibers, Figures 5 and 17 teach embodiments of the structure which comprises photonic crystal fibers) comprising a support structure (cladding 23) and uniformly arranged channels within the support structure (the photonic crystals are periodic in refractive index along a direction perpendicular to the direction of guided light, see Abstract).
Kittaka is silent on the convex envelope of a cross-section.
Kopp et al. disclose a coupler for optical fibers (Figure 3, coupler arrays 200A-L) which can couple a plurality of optical fibers (like PCFs) to an optical device and establish the ‘first shape’ for a bundle of fibers. As such, the convex envelope of the cross section of Figure 3L is configured to establish a first shape which is a polygonal shape of a regular polygon (a hexagon with n2 = 6 corners).
Di Teodoro et al. teaches a photonic crystal waveguide (Figure 8A, photonic crystal waveguides or ‘holey regions’ 857) wherein a convex envelope of a cross section of each fiber defines a regular polygon with n2 = 4, 6 corners.
One can plainly see that each individual element, which would be a fiber using these teachings, defines either the hexagons with n2 = 6 in element 857 as shown, or the bulk cross section being n2 = 4, a quadrilateral as shown in Figure 8A.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the fibers of Zinoviev et al. with the photonic crystal fibers disclosed in Kittaka et al., and to shape them under the teachings of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. to define a regular polygon with either n2 = 4 or n2 = 6 corners. This replacement could be accomplished by using two-dimensional photonic crystal fibers, which are known to the art (i.e. Kittaka et al., paragraph 99 refers to a photonic crystal fiber composed of quarts fiber with uniformly arranged air holes), and the design of Kopp and/or Di Teodoro to either meet the limitation for n2 = 4 or n2 = 6. This would predictably result in a photonic crystal waveguide which is broad-band and which has better signal-to-noise than traditional single-mode fibers, and which a skilled artisan can plainly recognize as being defined into a shape which optimizes the distances between fibers, preventing undue use of volume and also reducing loss, resulting in an accurate spectrometric reading.
Regarding claim 2;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1, wherein:
Zinoviev et al. discloses that the first shape is a generally circular shape (Figure 3, the fibers at end 212 are configured in a circular shape).
Regarding claim 5;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Zinoviev et al. further discloses a first frame (Figure 3, optical head 400) configured to position the plurality of fibers (222) at the input end to form the first convex envelope (Figure 3, end 212 is configured in a first shape with the first convex envelope), and a second frame (the housing for entrance surface 112) configured to position the plurality of fibers at the output end to form a second convex envelope.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the framing scheme of Zinoviev et al. in the waveguide of claim 1 to frame the bundle optical fibers from input to output. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (routine machining of the frame component to accept a predetermined set of optical fibers in a predetermined shape), and would predictably result in a fixed bundling of optical fibers that helps define multiple convex envelopes of a cross section for an input and output end of a photonic crystal fiber waveguides, ensuring maximal coupling to input light with low loss.
Regarding claim 6;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Kittaka et al. further discloses that the PCFs (sometimes referred to as photonic bandgap fibers) contain a periodic hole structure (i.e. core 71, Figure 17, core 21, Figure 5) which results in a confinement structure for photons that prevents mutual electronic band structure influencing (photonic crystal/bandgap fiber structures create a series of potential wells which provide reflection limited to a narrow range in wavelengths).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the waveguide of claim 1 to contain fibers which individually comprise a confinement structure that prevents mutual electronic band structure influence. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, such as by creating air holes or photonic bandgaps in the central cladding region of the fiber. This would predictably allow the fiber to couple with a desired wavelength range and with high efficiency, while blocking light from undesired frequencies.
Regarding claim 7;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Zinoviev et al. further discloses an output end (Figure 3, transmitting end 214) which has a length (the examiner interprets the length to be the direction along the bottom side of the rectangular frame attached to element 110) and a width (the examiner interprets this to be the direction perpendicular to the length of element 110), wherein the width is less than 3 diameters of any one of the fibers of the plurality of fibers (Figure 3 depicts that the width is only great enough for two rows, and therefore two diameters of fibers in the plurality of fibers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the photonic crystal waveguide of claim 1 under the teachings of Zinoviev et al., by configuring the output end to have a length and width such that less than 3 diameters of the fibers could fit along the width direction of the output end. This could be accomplished using routine machining methods known to the art for enclosures which couple with fiber optics, and would predictably result in a stable/narrow configuration suited for conveying a signal to a spectrometer with low loss.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinoviev et al. (US 20220003602 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20060140567 A1) and further in view of Kopp et al. (US 9817191 B2) and Di Teodoro et al. (US 7430352 B2).
Regarding claim 3;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Zinoviev is silent on the first shape of the bundle of optical fibers.
Kopp et al. disclose a coupler for optical fibers (Figure 3, coupler arrays 200A-L) which can couple a plurality of optical fibers (like PCFs) to an optical device and establish the ‘first shape’ for a bundle of fibers. As such, the convex envelope of the cross section of Figure 3L is configured to establish a first shape which is a polygonal shape of a regular polygon (i.e. a hexagon) with more than 3 corners.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the bundle of fibers taught in claim 1 to have a first shape wherein the first shape is a regular polygon with more than 3 corners. This could be accomplished by using the teachings of Kopp et al. to modify the PCF array of claim 1 such that the first shape is hexagonal. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (routine machining, extrusion, photolithography), and would predictably result in a more efficiently packed set of PCFs which capture more of the light over the cross-sectional area of the bundle receiving the input radiation, and thus would maximize signal strength for fainter sources.
Regarding claim 12;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Zinoviev et al. does not teach the shaping element as claimed.
Kopp et al. discloses that a plurality of fibers (Figure 1, 34A-1, 34A-2) is embedded in a shaping element (housing 14A), in which the shaping element defines a progression of the waveguide from the input end (i.e. left-hand side) to the output end (i.e. the right-hand side).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 under the teachings of Kopp et al., to enclose the optical fibers in a housing or shaping element which defines the progression of the waveguide as a whole from the input end to the output end. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, and would predictably impart the benefit of a stable structure for the waveguide and its fibers, to increase signal integrity and reduce errors that stem from fiber displacement in the absence of a housing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinoviev et al. (US 20220003602 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20060140567 A1) and further in view of Kopp et al. (US 9817191 B2), Di Teodoro et al. (US 7430352 B2), and Gibson et al. (US 10822262 B2).
Regarding claim 13;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 12, do not disclose that the shaping element is fabricated by an additive manufacturing process.
Gibson et al. discloses the use of an additive manufacturing process to produce fiber optic cables as well as fiber optic cable preforms that run along the length of the fiber (paragraph 13 discloses that the element is made through additive processes), which can obviously be utilized as shaping elements for said optical fibers.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to fabricate the shaping element of the device of claim 12 with additive manufacturing processes known to the art (paragraph 27-28 discloses a number of processes, including stereolithography, laser sintering, fused deposition, and 3d printing in general). This would predictably result in a high-precision method for forming the shaping element such that the optical fibers are arranged in a deliberate configuration that is less prone to loss and is spatially confined to fit within a desired volume.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinoviev et al. (US 20220003602 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20060140567 A1), and further in view of Kopp et al. (US 9817191 B2), Di Teodoro et al. (US 7430352 B2) and Gibson et al. (US 10822262 B2).
Regarding claim 14;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Gibson et al. teaches the use of additive manufacturing processes (Abstract, “An optical fiber made from… at least one additive manufacturing process”) in producing photonic crystal fibers (paragraph 14 describes how the properties of fibers produced through these methods are consistent with photonic crystal fibers and photonic bandgap fibers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture the waveguide of claim 1 wherein the plurality of fibers is produced by an additive process as taught in Gibson et al. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (paragraphs 27-28 disclose stereolithography, laser sintering, fused deposition, and 3d printing in general), and would predictably result in a fiber of consistent/uniform composition with proper bandgap structure which enables the functionalities of a photonic crystal fiber.
Claim(s) 8-10, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinoviev et al. (US 20220003602 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20060140567 A1) and further in view of Kopp et al. (US 9817191 B2) and Di Teodoro et al. (US 7430352 B2)
Regarding claim 8;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 7.
Di Teodoro et al discloses a photonic crystal waveguide (I.e. Figure 8B, photonic crystal rod system 800 conveys light to the output end/endcap 815), wherein at the output end the plurality of rods are configured in a one-dimensional array (Figure 8A and Figure 8B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the output end of the invention in claim 7 to have one row instead of two, thus making it a one-dimensional array. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (the same methods used for claim 7, but with half of the ‘width’ to only permit one row of fibers), and would predictably result in a slim output end which is suited for directing light into a grating or beam splitter, which is then used in spectral analysis (spectrometry, spectroscopy).
Regarding claim 9;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Di Teodoro et al discloses a photonic crystal waveguide (I.e. Figure 8B, photonic crystal rod system 800 conveys light to the output end/endcap 815), wherein the second convex envelope of a cross-section of the waveguide at the output end defines a slit shape, wherein the slit shape is linear (Figure 8A and Figure 8B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the output end of the invention in claim 1 to have a linear, slit-shaped convex envelope of a cross section at the output end. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (assembly of the waveguide frame with regard for a flat, level surface, and two parallel ends on both sides to ensure linearity), and would predictably result in a slim output end which is suited for directing light into a grating or beam splitter, which is then used in spectral analysis (spectrometry, spectroscopy).
Regarding claim 10;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the waveguide of claim 1, wherein:
Zinoviev is silent on the configuration of the output end.
Di Teodoro et al. discloses a photonic crystal waveguide, in which the output end (Figure 1D, signal light exits the waveguide through endcap 111) is configured to be optically connected with an optical lens (the light then enters entry lens 112), the optical lens having a lens refractive index (the refractive index is an intrinsic property of the lens).
Di Teodoro et al. further discloses that one may exert precise control over the index of refraction of the photonic crystal fiber (Paragraph 160, 179, “The use of photonic-crystal-fiber holes allows more precise control over the index of refraction.”) Altering the ratio of air-to-cladding/fiber material changes the effects index of refraction of said cladding or fiber; this is known as changing the “porosity” of the material, and its effect is used in photonic crystal fibers to exert precise control over their refractive indices.
Di Teodoro et al. does not disclose that the mean refractive index of the plurality of fibers differs from a mean of refractive index of air and the lens refractive index by less than 10%. However, Di Teodoro et al. does disclose the use of materials common to the art, such as glass silica, which are also used in lenses (i.e. paragraph 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to construct the waveguide of claim 1, wherein the output end is connected to an optical lens, wherein a mean refractive index of the plurality of fibers is modulated using the teachings of Di Teodoro et al (adjusting the porosity) such that it differs from a mean of refractive index of air (n ~ 1) and the lens (nsilica -glass ~ 1.1 – 1.5) by less than 10%. This could be accomplished using methods and materials known to the art, and would predictably optimize the spectrometry system to accept Raman light with low loss to pass onto the spectrometric sensing elements.
Regarding claim 15;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses a photonic crystal waveguide according to claim 1.
Zinoviev et al. further discloses a spectrometer (Figure 3, spectrometer 20), comprising:
A light source (Figure 3 depicts optical head 300, which paragraph 92-93 describes as being “configured for illuminating a sample with excitation light”), wherein the light comprises a spectral line and a line width (this is an inherent property of light, and is known to the art);
a collector (Figure 4 shows dichoric mirror 412 directing light from excitation fiber input port 410 into collimating reflector 420 and through small entrance 422/front glass 430 to collect light from sample 10; the examiner this set of elements to be a probe for spectrometric observation as it accomplishes the same function through a functionally identical structure) configured to collect light emitted from the probe as probe light;
a detector (spectrometer chip 22 functions as the sensor or detector for spectral lines) configured to detect the spectral components of the probe light (paragraph 96 discloses that the detector processes the discrete lines of the Raman light); and
an optical arrangement comprising an optical lens and a collimating lens (figure 1, projection optics 440 contain a collimating lens 442, referred to as the ‘first lens’, and an optical lens 444, referred to as the ‘second lens’), wherein the collimating lens is configured to collimate the diverging probe light (Figure 4 shows lens 442 collimating the incoming light rays)
that the Raman spectrometer may be of a type comprising a dispersive grating or prism for dispersing the light (paragraph 14 states this explicitly).
that the waveguide (Figures 2 & 3, bundle of fibers 212, 222 guiding lighting to output 214, 223) is configured and arranged to convey the probe light from the collector (Figure 4, optical head 400 prepares and collects Raman light)
Zinoviev et al does not disclose:
that the optical lens is configured to diverge the probe light,
that the collimating lens is configured to convey the diverging probe light upon the dispersive or diffractive element,
any subject matter relating to the ratio of linewidths of the light to the wavelength of a spectral line,
or that the waveguide conveys probe light from the collector to the optical arrangement.
Di Teodoro et al. discloses an optical system with
a light source (i.e. master oscillator 110), wherein a ratio of the line width to a wavelength of the spectral line is less than 1/10000 (Paragraph 9, Summary of Invention discloses that the linewidth is less than 50 GHz; Paragraph 138 discloses that the wavelength may be in the optical range, meaning the ratio must be less than 1/10000 by
Δ
ν
ν
well beyond the optical wavelength range. Infrared and UV wavelengths found in these applications would have the same result)
many optical lenses (Figure 8C, lenses 876) and a collimating lens (lens/focusing unit 836), wherein the collimating lens is configured to convey diverging probe light upon a diffractive element (grating 831 and/or 832).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to fabricate a spectrometer comprising a light source with a small (< 10-5) ratio of linewidth to wavelength, a collector for probe light, the photonic crystal waveguide of claim 1, a dispersive/diffractive element for splitting the light into its spectral components, a detector for said spectra, and an optical lens and collimating lens that directs the light into the diffractive element. This could be accomplished under the combined teachings of Di Teodoro, Zinoviev, and Kittaka et al., with methods known to the art (routine placement of components, fundamental optics knowledge, high powered laser systems). The waveguiding component would lead into an optical arrangement as described in Di Teodoro et al., and would modify the spectrometer of Zinoviev to include a set of lenses downstream of the waveguide. In combination, these teachings predictably result in a spectrometer capable of using IR, optical, or UV light to probe a sample and project its spectrum onto a sensing device with low signal to noise (partially enabled by the low linewidth ratio, and maintained by the waveguide’s construction).
Regarding claim 16;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 15, wherein
Di Teodoro et al. discloses that the dispersive or diffractive elements is a grating or prism (grating 831, grating 832), and wherein the collector is one or more additional optical lenses (collimating lens 836 is preceded by optical lenses 876, which together collect the light to send downstream to the spectrometer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the spectrometer of claim 15 to include a grating as the diffractive/dispersive element, and to have a collector composed of one or more lenses as taught in Di Teodoro et al. This could be accomplished using components (gratings, prisms, optical lenses, collimating lenses) and methods (routine placement of optical components) known to the art, and would predictably result in a spectrometer capable of using IR, optical, or UV light to probe a sample and project its spectrum onto a sensing device with low signal to noise.
Regarding claim 18;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 15, further comprising:
Zinoviev et al. further discloses a first frame (Figure 3, optical head 400) configured to position the plurality of fibers (222) at the input end to form the first convex envelope (Figure 3, end 212 is configured in a first shape with the first convex envelope), and a second frame (the housing for entrance surface 112) configured to position the plurality of fibers at the output end to form a second convex envelope.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the framing scheme of Zinoviev et al. in the waveguide of claim 1 and spectrometer of claim 15 to frame the bundle optical fibers from input to output. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (routine machining of the frame component to accept a predetermined set of optical fibers in a predetermined shape), and would predictably result in a fixed bundling of optical fibers that helps define multiple convex envelopes of a cross section for an input and output end of a photonic crystal fiber waveguides, ensuring maximal coupling to input light with low loss.
Regarding claim 19;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 15
Kittaka et al. further discloses that the PCFs (sometimes referred to as photonic bandgap fibers) contain a periodic hole structure (i.e. core 71, Figure 17, core 21, Figure 5) which result in a confinement structure for photons that prevents mutual electronic band structure influencing (photonic crystal/bandgap fiber structures create a series of potential wells which provide reflection limited to a narrow range in wavelengths).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the spectrometer of claim 15 to contain fibers which individually comprise a confinement structure that prevents mutual electronic band structure influence. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, such as by creating air holes or photonic bandgaps in the central cladding region of the fiber. This would predictably allow the fiber to couple with a desired wavelength range and with high efficiency, while blocking light from undesired frequencies.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinoviev et al. (US 20220003602 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20060140567 A1) and further in view of Kopp et al. (US 9817191 B2) and Di Teodoro et al. (US 7430352 B2)
Regarding claim 17;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 15.
Zinoviev is silent on a photonic crystal waveguide.
Di Teodoro et al. further discloses a photonic crystal waveguide (Figure 8A, photonic crystal waveguides or ‘holey regions’ 857) with an arrangement of fibers (PCR ribbon 801), wherein a convex envelope of a cross section of each of the fibers defines a regular polygon with n2 corners, wherein n-2 is 4 (figure 8A).
Zinoviev et al. further discloses that the first shape is a generally circular shape (Figure 3, the fibers at end 212 are configured in a circular shape).
Kopp et al. also disclose a coupler for optical fibers (Figure 3, coupler arrays 200A-L) which can couple a plurality of optical fibers (like PCFs) to an optical device and establish a ‘first shape’ for a bundle of fibers, wherein the convex envelope of the cross section of Figure 3L is configured to establish a first shape which is a polygonal shape of a regular polygon (a hexagon with n = 6 corners).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the spectrometer of claim 15 to host fibers wherein the convex envelope of a cross-section of those fibers is a polygon with 3,4, or 6 corners. This selection is obvious under the teachings of Di Teodoro, Zinoviev, and Kopp et al., and could be accomplished using routine manufacturing methods known to the art. It would predictably result in a more efficiently packed set of PCFs which capture more of the light over the cross-sectional area of the bundle receiving the input radiation, and would connect with other optical devices efficiently which require a specific geometric arrangement (hexagon, rectangle).
Regarding claim 20;
Zinoviev et al. in view of Kittaka et al. and further in view of Kopp et al. and Di Teodoro et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 15
Kopp et al. discloses that a plurality of fibers (Figure 1, 34A-1, 34A-2) is embedded in a shaping element (housing 14A), in which the shaping element defines a progression of the waveguide from the input end (i.e. left-hand side) to the output end (i.e. the right-hand side).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 15 under the teachings of Kopp et al., to enclose the optical fibers in a housing or shaping element which defines the progression of the waveguide as a whole from the input end to the output end. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, and would predictably impart the benefit of a stable structure for the waveguide and its fibers, to increase signal integrity and reduce errors that stem from fiber displacement in the absence of a housing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 A HOLLWEG can be reached at 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 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874