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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 26, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed September 26, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “each ridge and each valley” is objected to because the recitation of ridges and valleys have now been removed in amended claim 1. For the purposes of examination, “each ridge and each valley (along its length) is” will be examined as “each space or gap is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kokki et al. (US 2020/0099190 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kokki discloses an optical fiber capillary tube power stripper (Fig. 1C) comprising: an elongated optical fiber (105, 110 in Fig. 1C); and a capillary tube (115) comprising an elongated body including an outer surface and an inner surface that extend between first and second ends of the capillary tube, wherein the inner surface of the capillary tube surrounds the elongated optical fiber proximate, adjacent or in contact with an exterior surface of the elongated optical fiber and the outer surface of the capillary tube is spaced to a side of the inner surface of the capillary tube opposite the elongated optical fiber, wherein the capillary tube: (a) defines one or more spaces or gaps (116) in the elongated body between the first and second ends of the capillary tube wherein the optical fiber is exposed or not covered by the one or more spaces or gaps; or (b) includes one or more openings (116) in the elongated body between the first and second ends of the capillary tube wherein the optical fiber is exposed or not covered by the one or more openings in paragraph 0044.
Regarding claim 13, Kokki discloses the optical fiber includes an optical fiber core (105) which is surrounded by a cladding (110) which defines the outer surface of the elongated optical fiber in Fig. 1C.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lugo et al. (US 2023/0036091 A1) in view of Kokki et al. (US 2020/0099190 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lugo discloses an optical fiber capillary tube power stripper comprising: an elongated optical fiber (Figs. 2-3C; paragraph 0025); and a capillary tube (15) comprising an elongated body including an outer surface and an inner surface that extend between first and second ends of the capillary tube, wherein the inner surface of the capillary tube surrounds the elongated optical fiber proximate, adjacent or in contact with an exterior surface of the elongated optical fiber and the outer surface of the capillary tube is spaced to a side of the inner surface of the capillary tube opposite the elongated optical fiber, wherein the capillary tube: (a) defines one or more spaces or gaps (19) in the elongated body between the first and second ends of the capillary tube; or (b) includes one or more openings (19) in the elongated body between the first and second ends of the capillary tube in paragraphs 0026-0029.
Still regarding claim 1, Lugo teaches the claimed invention except for the optical fiber exposed by the openings. Kokki discloses an optical fiber light stripper (Fig. 1C) comprising an elongated optical fiber (105, 110) and a capillary tube (115) defining one or more gaps, spaces or openings (116) between first and second ends of the capillary tube wherein the optical fiber is exposed or not covered. Since both inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to expose the optical fiber as disclosed by Kokki though the capillary tube of Lugo the purpose of enhancing the stripping effect.
Regarding claim 2, Lugo discloses the elongated body is helical-shaped, spiral-shaped, or spring-shaped including a number of turns that define a single, continuous space or gap between pairs of proximate or adjacent turns in paragraph 0026.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Lugo further discloses each space, gap or opening which is oval shaped having an elongated axis positioned at an angle to the longitudinal direction of the elongated optical fiber in Figs. 3A-3B. The proposed combination of Lugo and Kokki teaches the claimed invention except for the openings positioned at an acute angle. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to position the openings at an acute angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the elongated optical fiber in order to extract light in a desired direction.
Regarding claim 11, the proposed combination of Lugo and Kokki teaches the claimed invention except for the elongated body formed of quartz glass. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the elongated body from quartz glass, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Lugo discloses the optical fiber includes an optical fiber core which is surrounded by a cladding which defines the outer surface of the elongated optical fiber in paragraphs 0022 and 0031. The proposed combination of Lugo and Kokki teaches the claimed invention except for the cladding surrounded by a coating. However, coatings are ubiquitous in the art of optical fibers and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a coating for the purpose of providing additional protection to the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 13, Lugo discloses the optical fiber includes an optical fiber core which is surrounded by a cladding which defines the outer surface of the elongated optical fiber in paragraphs 0022 and 0031.
Regarding claim 14, Lugo discloses an adhesive disposed between the exterior surface of the optical fiber and the inner surface of the elongated capillary tube in paragraphs 0023 and 0031.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the capillary tube, and therefore are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Thus a prior art product which possesses the claimed product characteristics can anticipate or render obvious the claim subject matter regardless of the manner in which it is fabricated. A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. section 102 or alternatively on 35 U.S.C. section 103 of the status is eminently fair and acceptable. In re Brown and Saffer, 173 USPQ 685 and 688; In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 147. As such no weight is given to the process steps recited in claims 15 and 16.
Regarding claim 17, Lugo discloses an adhesive disposed between the exterior surface of the optical fiber and the inner surface of the elongated capillary tube in paragraphs 0023 and 0031.
Regarding claim 18, the proposed combination of Lugo and Kokki teaches the claimed invention except for refractive indices of the adhesive and a core of the optical fiber match. However, Lugo discloses the adhesive may be a high index material in paragraph 0023 and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have the refractive indices of the adhesive and a core of the optical fiber match in order to facilitate coupling to the capillary tube.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the proposed combination of Lugo and Kokki teaches the claimed invention except for a reflective film formed on the body of the capillary tube. However, Lugo discloses a reflective surface 638 immediately adjacent to the capillary tube 15 surrounding the optical fiber 615 (Fig. 6; paragraph 0023) and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form a reflective film on the body of the capillary tube to reflect away damaging light in a robust, compact structure. Further, it would be obvious to form the reflective film on the inner surface of the body of the capillary tube in order to facilitate coupling to the capillary tube.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lugo et al. (US 2023/0036091 A1) in view of in view of Kokki et al. (US 2020/0099190 A1), further in view of Jandric et al. (US 8,873,352 B1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the proposed combination of Lugo and Kokki teaches the claimed invention except for a nickel-chromium resistance wire disposed in the single, continuous space or gap. Jandric discloses a nickel-chromium resistance material for absorbing stay light from an optical waveguide in column 3, lines 35-64 and claim 4. Since all of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a nickel-chromium resistance material as disclosed by Jandric in the capillary tube of the proposed combination of Lugo and Kokki for the purpose of absorbing stray light extracted by the capillary tube in order to prevent damaging temperature increases. Further, it would be obvious to dispose the stray light absorbing material in the single, continuous space or gap in the form of a wire for the purpose of forming a compact and robust structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed September 26, 2025, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 October 2, 2025