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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed January 30, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0274300 A1) in view of Hiroishi et al. (US 2005/0213907 A1) in view of Bickham et al. (US 2018/0003890 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 16, 17 and 20, Li discloses a few mode optical fiber (100 in Fig. 3; see abstract), comprising: a core (120); and a cladding (150) surrounding the core, the cladding comprising stress members (151) comprising at least two first stress members and at least two second stress members such that at least one first stress member and one second stress member are positioned on a first radial side of the core and at least one first stress member and one second stress member are positioned on a second radial side of the core (paragraph 0039 discloses optical fiber 100 including “multiple stress rods on each side of the core 120”; the multiple stress rods on each side can read on any of the “first stress members” and “second stress members” since Applicant has not distinguished between them), wherein: the core and the cladding support the propagation and transmission of at least LP01, LP11a, and LP11b modes at one or more wavelengths (paragraph 0022), and an effective index difference between the LP11a and LP11b modes is about 3.0x10-5 or greater (paragraphs 0031, 0041).
Still regarding claims 1, 16, 17 and 20, Li teaches the claimed invention except for the refractive index of the at least one stress member. Hiroishi discloses an optical fiber (Fig. 8) comprising stress members (85) having a maximum relative refractive index of -0.1% with respect to the cladding in paragraphs 0249-0252. Since both inventions relate to optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to utilize the refractive index of the stress member as disclosed by Hiroishi in the optical fiber of Li for the purpose of imparting stress while maintaining polarization. Further, since Li discloses the cladding to be pure silica glass (see paragraph 0030, Fig. 2), in the proposed combination the relative refractive index of the stress member would be from about 0.0% to about -0.5% relative to pure silica glass.
Still regarding claims 1, 16, 17 and 20, the proposed combination of Li and Hiroishi teaches the claimed invention except for the spacing of the stress members. Hiroishi also discloses stress members spaced apart by a distance of about 15 microns to about 40 microns in paragraph 0263. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have such a spacing between any of the stress members and arrive at the claimed center point of the first stress member and center point of the second stress member on the first radial side of the core spaced apart by a distance of about 15 microns to 40 microns in order to reduce cross talk and beat length, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Still regarding claims 1, 16, 17 and 20, the proposed combination of Li and Hiroishi teaches the claimed invention except for each of the LP01, LP11a, and LP11b modes have a birefringence of about 5.7x10-6 or less at 1310 nm. Bickham discloses an optical fiber supporting the propagation of the LP01 mode as well as at least one higher-order LP mode, wherein the birefringence of the LP01 mode is sufficiently low in order for the two polarized components to propagate with the same phase velocity in paragraph 0116. Since all of the inventions relate to optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to have a low birefringence for the LP01 mode as disclosed by Bickham in the optical fiber of the proposed combination of Li and Hiroishi for the purpose of aiding the two polarized components to propagate with the same phase velocity, leading to improved signal quality. Further, it would be obvious to have a low birefringence for the LP11a and LP11b modes in order to improve the signal quality for those modes. Finally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed birefringence, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses at least one of the first stress members and the second stress members is comprised of B203 in paragraph 0037.
Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination of Li, Hiroishi and Bickham teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the mole % of B203. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed mole %, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses at least one of the first stress members and the second stress members is comprised of fluorine in paragraph 0037.
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination of Li, Hiroishi and Bickham teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the mole % of fluorine. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed mole %, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the cladding is disposed between the first stress member and the second stress member in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the first stress member comprises fluorine and the second stress member comprises B203 in paragraph 0037, which discloses the stress members may be co-doped with both B203 and fluorine.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses a first plane intersects the core, the first stress member, and the second stress member in Fig. 3. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to also have the first plane intersecting the core, first stress members and second stress members.
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses the core is elliptical in cross-sectional shape in paragraph 0036. The proposed combination of Li, Hiroishi and Bickham teaches the claimed invention except for first plane extends along a minor axis of the elliptical shape of the core. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to orient the elliptical shape in any direction including wherein the first plane extends along a minor axis of the elliptical shape of the core as a matter of obvious design choice depending on the application and desired properties. Further, it would be “obvious to try”, since Li does not limit the orientation of the elliptical core and merely rotating it by 90 degrees would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses the first plane intersects a center point of the core, a center point of the first stress member, and a center point of the second stress member in Fig. 3. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to also have the first plane intersecting a center point of the core, a center point of each of the first stress members, and a center point of each of the second stress members.
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses a second plane intersects the core but does not intersect the first stress member and the second stress member, the first plane being perpendicular to the second plane in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses the first stress member has a radius of about 6 microns to about 16 microns in paragraph 0039.
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the core is elliptical in cross-sectional shape in paragraph 0036.
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses the core is circular in cross-sectional shape in Fig. 3 and paragraph 0036.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Li discloses the effective index difference between the LP11a and LP11b modes is about 3.4x10-5 or greater in paragraph 0031.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. However, in order to expedite the prosecution of the Application, the relevant portions of Applicant’s remarks will be addressed.
On pages 6-7, Applicant states that Li only teaches “one stress member on a first side of core 120 and one stress member on a second radial side of core 120.” Applicant further states that Li is silent regarding “first and second stress members on first and second radial sides of a fiber core.” However, Li at paragraph 0039 discloses “[a]lthough Fig. 3 shows only one stress rod on each side of the core 120, the optical fiber 100 may include multiple stress rods on each side of the core 120.” The multiple stress rods on each side can read on any of the “first stress members” and “second stress members” since Applicant has not distinguished between them.
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 March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights