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
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on June 29, 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 1-8 and 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyngsoe et al. (US 2020/0103587 A1) in view of Peng et al. (US 2012/0082410 A1), further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2005/111679 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Lyngsoe discloses a hollow core optical waveguide (Fig. 1) comprising: a hollow core (4); and a structured arrangement of longitudinally extending capillaries (2) surrounding the hollow core to form a cladding (paragraph 0132); wherein one or both of the hollow core and the cladding contains gas (paragraph 0065 states “the core region and/or the hollow tubes independently of each other comprise gas”); wherein the hollow core optical waveguide is an antiresonant optical fiber configured to guide light along the hollow core by an antiresonant effect (paragraph 0063); and wherein the cladding comprises a ring of longitudinally extending tubular capillaries (2; paragraph 0132).
Still regarding claims 1 and 16, Lyngsoe teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the gas configured to provide a refractive index difference. Peng discloses a hollow core optical waveguide (Figs. 4B, 5) and a method of modifying optical properties of a hollow core optical waveguide comprising: a hollow core (410, 510; paragraph 0030); and a structured arrangement of longitudinally extending capillaries (420, 520) surrounding the hollow core to form a cladding; wherein one or both of the hollow core and the cladding contains gas configured to provide a refractive index difference between the hollow core and the cladding (paragraphs 0032-0035) and changing a gas content of one or both of the hollow core and the cladding in order to achieve a refractive index difference between the hollow core and the cladding (paragraphs 0050 and 0056). 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 arrive at a refractive index difference between the core and the cladding as disclosed by Peng in the hollow core optical fiber of Lyngsoe for the purpose of enhancing the waveguiding properties.
Still regarding claims 1 and 16, the proposed combination of Lyngsoe and Peng teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the refractive index difference to change coupling between core guided modes and cladding modes. Kim discloses an air-core optical fiber (Fig. 1; paragraph 0054) wherein the refractive index difference between the core and the cladding is less than one percent (paragraph 0107), the refractive index difference to change coupling between core guided modes and cladding modes in the hollow core optical waveguide (paragraph 0106). 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 arrive at the refractive index difference between the core and the cladding as disclosed by Kim in the hollow core optical fiber of the proposed combination of Lyngsoe and Peng for the purpose of adjusting the coupling between the modes of the fiber.
Regarding claim 2, Lyngsoe discloses both the hollow core and the cladding contain gas in paragraph 0065.
Regarding claim 3, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses indices of refraction can be adjusted by changing the gas pressure in the first core corresponding to the hollow core and the second core corresponding to the cladding in paragraphs 0033-0035. The proposed combination of Lyngsoe, Peng and Kim teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the hollow core and the cladding contain the same gas. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the same gas but at different pressures in order to arrive at the higher index of refraction within the core to enable guiding of the optical wave, while simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 4, Lyngsoe at paragraph 0065 states “the core region and/or the hollow tubes independently of each other comprise gas” while Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the hollow core contains a first gas species or mixture, and the cladding contains a second gas species or mixture different from the first gas species of mixture in paragraph 0036, which describes how different locations within the second core corresponding to the cladding can have different gases. Since the first core corresponding to the hollow core only contains a single gas, a mixture of gases in the cladding would constitute a different mixture than that within the hollow core.
Regarding claim 5, Lyngsoe discloses one of the hollow core or the cladding contains no gas so as to be at vacuum pressure in paragraph 0065.
Regarding claim 6, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses different capillaries of the cladding differently contain gas to provide a refractive index difference between at least two of the capillaries in paragraph 0043.
Regarding claim 7, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the hollow core has a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the cladding capillaries in paragraph 0035.
Regarding claim 8, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the hollow core has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the cladding capillaries in paragraph 0037.
Regarding claim 9, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the hollow core optical waveguide is a photonic bandgap optical fiber configured to guide light along the hollow core by a photonic bandgap effect, the cladding comprising a microstructured regular array of longitudinally extending capillaries in Figs. 4B, 5 and paragraph 0037.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the hollow core and/or the capillaries are sealed by a sealant material applied to end facets of the optical waveguide in paragraph 0051.
Regarding claims 12, 13 and 20, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the fiber sealed in paragraph 0051. The proposed combination of Lyngsoe, Peng and Kim teaches the claimed invention except for collapsing the end. However, collapsing an end of an optical fiber is well-known and common in the art of optical waveguides and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to seal the cladding by a collapse of the structured arrangement of the capillaries at the ends of the optical waveguide for the purpose of ensuring the gas is contained within the fiber while providing a robust structure. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to splice a portion of solid core optical fiber to each end facet in order to facilitate connection to additional optical devices.
Regarding claim 14, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses one or more apertures in a side wall of the optical waveguide through which gas can be introduced into or removed from the hollow core in paragraphs 0038 and 0056.
Regarding claim 15, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses an optical device, optical apparatus or optical system comprising one or more hollow core optical waveguides in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 17, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses changing the gas content comprises introducing gas into one or both of the hollow core and cladding in paragraph 0050.
Regarding claim 18, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses changing the gas content comprises removing gas from one or both of the hollow core and cladding in paragraph 0050.
Regarding claim 21, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses making an additional change or changes to the gas content at one or more later times in order to alter the refractive index difference in paragraph 0050.
Regarding claim 22, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses changing the gas content comprises introducing or removing gas via one or both ends of the optical waveguide in paragraphs 0038 and 0056.
Regarding claim 23, Peng, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses changing the gas content comprises introducing or removing gas via one or more apertures in a side wall of the optical waveguide in paragraphs 0038 and 0056.
Regarding claim 24, Lyngsoe discloses the longitudinally extending tubular capillaries are spaced apart from each other in Fig. 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed June 29, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant states that Peng relates to Kagome optical fibers, which “has specifically been acknowledged as not a hollow core optical fibre or waveguide.” However, Peng’s waveguide is described as “a hollow core fiber” in the abstract. Paragraph 0030 of Peng further states “[t]he first core region may include an inner hollow structure pressurized with a gas, or evacuated to form [a] vacuum.” Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the fiber of Peng does indeed have a hollow core.
On page 7, Applicant further states that “the skilled person would not understand from Peng that a gas content could be provided in the antiresonant optical fibre of Lyngsoe in order to achieve the same refractive index difference.” However, Applicant provides no further support or evidence to substantiate such a statement. As established above, Lyngsoe and Peng (as well as Kim) all relate to hollow core optical fibers. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in the modification. The courts have held that obviousness does not require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., a reasonable expectation of obtaining similar properties. See, e.g.,In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
On page 7, Applicant states that Kim in combination with Lyngsoe and Peng does not teach the amended limitation of the refractive index difference to change coupling between core guided modes and cladding modes in the hollow core optical waveguide. However, Kim in paragraph 0106, specifically discloses “it is well known from coupled mode theory that the coupling of two modes, in this case the core mode to a surface mode, will be stronger when the effective refractive indexes of the two modes are closer.”
On pages 7 and 8, Applicant states that Kim is concerned with photonic bandgap fibers, rather than antiresonant fibers or Kagome fibers. However, Kim, just as Lyngsoe and Peng, relates to hollow core optical fibers (see p1, “Description” portion of specification). Applicant further states that Kim’s teaching of adjusting the surface mode coupling would not enhance the waveguiding properties of Lyngsoe’s antiresonant hollow core fiber, where surface modes are not relevant. The Examiner disagrees with this statement. Lyngsoe at paragraph 0025 discloses that the tubes not touching “has been found to be advantageous for suppressing of undesired higher order modes.” At paragraph 0028, seven non-touching tubes “provides a highly increased suppression of higher order modes.” Thus, Lyngsoe is most certainly concerned with surface modes. Incorporating Kim’s teaching of adjusting the degree of surface mode coupling would enhance the waveguiding properties of the fundamental mode, which is desired by Lyngsoe.
For the reasons stated above, the prima facie rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights