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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 April, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 09 April, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the withdrawal of claim 11, the previously raised drawings objection is withdrawn. However, the claim amendments fail to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they fail to remedy the issues previously raised by the examiner regarding the claimed “penetration depth” and the claimed “entry surface”. The rejections are repeated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 April, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1: Applicant argues that Velikov and Filhaber fail to describe or suggest “the open ends of the cores of the glass fibers are arranged with penetration depths relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within a material of the optical element, the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element”, since Velikov teaches that the fibers 56a, 56b, … 56 n are glued to the crater-like projections 64_1-64_n.
In paragraph 0056, previously relied on in teaching this feature, Velikov states “Although the invention has been shown and described with reference to specific embodiments, it is understood that these embodiments should not be construed as limiting the areas of application of the invention and that any changes and modifications are possible”, and further provides examples including “The ends of the fibers can be attached to the lens elements by soldering, fusing, welding, etc.”. The rejection is based on the disclosed embodiment wherein the open ends of the cores are fused to the optical element, but reference is made in the rejection to the illustrated embodiments, since they provide the best available representation of the other claimed features. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the embodiment having ends of the fibers attached to the lens elements by fusing to be an alternative to the other disclosed method of attaching the fibers to the lens elements with UV glue on the projections.
Regarding claim 1: Applicant argues that Velikov does not provide another description regarding how the optical fibers 56a-56n would be fused to the crater-like projections 64_1-64_n, and that “[t]he ends of the fibers can be attached to the lens elements by soldering, fusing, welding, etc.” is general and broad and does not suggest that the optical fibers 56a-56n can be fused to the crater-like projections 64_1-64_n.
Examiner disagrees. The ends of the fibers correspond to the open ends of the cores, which are shown to be recessed with the claimed penetration depth, and fusing the ends of the fibers would necessarily result in the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element, since the process of fusing includes joining the materials of the two elements by melting, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 12-15: Applicant asserts that claims 2-5 and 12-15 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, as well as in view of their separately recited elements.
To the first point, arguments regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained. The second point of applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding independent claim 6 and 8-10: Applicant argues that independent claims 6 and 9-10 are allowable for similar reasons as claim 1. Applicant further asserts that dependent claim 8 is allowable by virtue of its dependency from claim 6, as well as in view of its separately recited elements.
These arguments are not persuasive for similar reasons that the arguments regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims were not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 9: “the open ends of the cores of the glass fibers are arranged with penetration depths relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within a material of the optical element” is unclear. The present claim language of “entry surfaces” doesn’t sufficiently define a starting point, and “to within a material of the optical element” doesn’t sufficiently define an end point. As stated in the corresponding 112(b) rejection of the previous office action, this appears to be attempting to describe the penetration depth ‘W’ of Figs. 1a, 3, 4, and 5a. To the best of the Examiner’s understanding, this corresponds to the optical fibers penetrating the optical element with penetration depths measured along side surfaces of the optical fibers from the open ends of the optical fibers, along a longitudinal axis of the fibers, to the last point of the surface of the optical fibers that overlaps the optical element along a transverse axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (not suggested as claim language, but merely an attempt to explain Examiner’s understanding of the claimed penetration depth). Additionally, as best understood by the Examiner, this directly corresponds to features of Velikov Fig. 6 which are challenged in Applicant’s arguments in the response dated 10 November, 2025. The claim should be amended to provide clarity, but it is unclear from Applicant’s response how the intended meaning of this claim language differs from the Examiner’s interpretation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is again interpreting the penetration depth as the feature ‘W’ of Figs. 1a, 3, 4, and 5a, and as explained in words above.
Regarding claim 10: Similarly, “wherein second open ends of the transition elements are each arranged with a penetration depth within the material of the optical element” is unclear and does not sufficiently define a start and end point to measure the penetration depth. Examiner is again interpreting the penetration depth as the feature ‘W’ of Fig. 5a.
Regarding claims 2-5, 8, and 12-15: These dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velikov (US 2002/0131703; hereinafter Velikov) in view of Filhaber et al. (US 2003/0231850; hereinafter Filhaber).
Regarding claim 1: Velikov disclosesA fiber exit element (see Figs. 1, 6, and 11)with a plurality of fibers (Fig. 6, optical fibers 56a-n) each having at least one core (since the fiber guides light, it is considered to have at least one core, i.e. the part of the fiber where light travels), each of which is designed to guide a signal light radiation (see paragraph 0042), andwith at least one optical element (Fig. 6, lens matrix 52), which is connected with open ends of the cores of the fibers and is designed to obtain the signal light radiation from the open ends of the cores of the fibers and to discharge the signal light radiation to the outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface (according to paragraph 0042, light propagates from the fibers 56a-n to the lens matrix 52; the lens matrix thus obtains the signal light from the open ends of the core of the fibers, and the lenses then will discharge the light to the outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface, being the surface facing away from the optical fibers), wherein the open ends of the cores of the fibers are arranged with penetration depths relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within the material of the optical element (see Fig. 5, crater-like projections 64_1-64n form an arrangement with a penetration depth relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within the material of the optical element), the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element (see paragraph 0056, which teaches a modification to the described embodiments, which includes the illustrated embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 6, wherein the ends of the fibers are attached to the lens elements by fusing; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to involve melting the interface where the fiber ends are attached to the lens elements and joining the material, such that the material of the cores is joined with the material of the lens elements; the melting of said interface would ensure the claimed feature of the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element), andcharacterized in that the entry surfaces of the optical element are separated from each other by a plurality of depressions (see depressions between the projections 64_1 and 64n), and at least one first fused fiber of the plurality of fibers and a second fused fiber of the plurality of fibers are spaced apart by a first depression of the plurality of depressions (Fig. 6 shows this feature).
Velikov fails to teach that the optical fiber is a glass fiber. However, glass fibers are conventional in the art. For instance, an optical fiber array wherein the fibers are composed of glass was taught by Filhaber (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide glass fibers for the optical fibers in the Velikov device, since it had previously been taught by Filhaber and since optical fibers made of glass are conventional in the art. Doing so would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to match the refractive index between the lens matrix, which is disclosed to be glass (see paragraph 0036), and the optical fibers, reducing loss from the refractive index boundaries in the device.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Velikov teachesA fiber exit element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of depressions each extends linearly along a width of an optical body of the optical element, the width defined by a transverse direction Y and wherein the fused glass fibers are arranged perpendicular to the transverse direction Y (see Fig. the depressions each extend in 2 dimensions, and one of the dimensions is perpendicular to an axis along which the fused fibers are arranged; see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Velikov teachesA fiber exit element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the at least one first fused glass fiber is enclosed by a first cavity or by a plurality of cross-linear recesses (Fig. 4 shows the top-view of the crater-like projections; they enclose the fused fibers, including a first fused fiber).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Velikov teachesA fiber exit element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the fused glass fibers are each enclosed by one of the depressions (Fig. 4 shows that each of the fibers corresponds to a depression that encloses it).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Velikov teachesA fiber exit element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the first depression is annularly arranged around the at least one first fused glass fiber (compare Figs. 4 and 6, which together show this feature).
Regarding claim 6: Velikov disclosesA fiber exit element (see Figs. 1, 6, and 11)with a plurality of fibers (Fig. 6, optical fibers 56a-n) each having at least one core (since the fiber guides light, it is considered to have at least one core, i.e. the part of the fiber where light travels), each of which is designed to guide a signal light radiation (see paragraph 0042), and with at least one optical element (Fig. 6, lens matrix 52), which is connected with open ends of the cores of the fibers and is designed to obtain the signal light radiation from the open ends of the cores of the fibers and to discharge the signal light radiation to the outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface (according to paragraph 0042, light propagates from the fibers 56a-n to the lens matrix 52; the lens matrix thus obtains the signal light from the open ends of the cores of the fibers, and the lenses then will discharge the light to the outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface, being the surface facing away from the optical fibers), wherein the open ends of the cores of the fibers are arranged with penetration depths relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within the material of the optical element (see Fig. 5, crater-like projections 64_1-64n form an arrangement with a penetration depth from entry surfaces of the optical element to within the material of the optical element), the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element (see paragraph 0056, which teaches a modification to the described embodiments, which includes the illustrated embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 6, wherein the ends of the fibers are attached to the lens elements by fusing; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to involve melting the interface where the fiber ends are attached to the lens elements and joining the material, such that the material of the cores is joined with the material of the lens elements; the melting of said interface would ensure the claimed feature of the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element), and characterized in thatthe entry surfaces of the optical element corresponds to a plurality of elevations raised from an optical body of the optical element (Fig. 6, the center of the crater-like cavities 64_1-n are each considered to be elevations), wherein at least one first fused fiber of the plurality of fibers is disposed in a first elevation of the plurality of elevations (Fig. 6, the fiber 56a is disposed in a first elevation), and wherein at least one second fused fiber of the plurality of fibers is disposed in a second elevation of the plurality of elevations (Fig. 6, the fiber 56b is disposed in a second elevation).
Velikov fails to teach that the optical fiber is a glass fiber. However, glass fibers are conventional in the art. For instance, an optical fiber array wherein the fibers are composed of glass was taught by Filhaber (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide glass fibers for the optical fibers in the Velikov device, since it had previously been taught by Filhaber and since optical fibers made of glass are conventional in the art. Doing so would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to match the refractive index between the lens matrix, which is disclosed to be glass (see paragraph 0036), and the optical fibers, reducing loss from refractive index boundaries in the device.
Regarding claim 8: Modified Velikov teaches A fiber exit element according to claim 6 (as applied above), wherein the first elevation is square-like or rectangular in shape (see Fig. 5, the cross-section shows the elevation has a square-like shape).
Regarding claim 9: Velikov disclosesA fiber exit element (see Figs. 1, 6, and 11)with a plurality of fibers (Fig. 6, optical fibers 56a-n) each having at least one core (since the fiber guides light, it is considered to have at least one core, i.e. the part of the fiber where light travels), each of which is designed to guide a signal light radiation (see paragraph 0042), andwith at least one optical element (Fig. 6, lens matrix 52), which is connected with open ends of the cores of the fibers and is designed to obtain the signal light radiation from the open ends of the cores of the fibers and to discharge the signal light radiation to the outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface (according to paragraph 0042, light propagates from the fibers 56a-n to the lens matrix 52; the lens matrix thus obtains the signal light from the open ends of the cores of the fibers, and the lenses will then discharge the light to the outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface, being the surface facing away from the optical fibers), wherein the open ends of the cores of the fibers are arranged with penetration depths relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within the material of the optical element (see Fig. 6, crater-like projections 64_1-64n form an arrangement with penetration depths relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within the material), the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element (see paragraph 0056, which teaches a modification to the described embodiments, which includes the illustrated embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 6, wherein the ends of the fibers are attached to the lens elements by fusing; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to involve melting the interface where the fiber ends are attached to the lens elements and joining the material, such that the material of the cores is joined with the material of the lens elements; the melting of said interface would ensure the claimed feature of the open ends of the cores being fused into and within the material of the optical element), characterized in that at least one first fused fiber of the plurality of fibers and a second fused fiber of the plurality of fibers are spaced apart from one another by at least one spacer element (portions of plate 60 between adjacent fibers).
Velikov fails to teach that the optical fiber is a glass fiber. However, glass fibers are conventional in the art. For instance, an optical array wherein the fibers are composed of glass was taught by Filhaber (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide glass fibers for the optical fibers in the Velikov device, since it had previously been taught by Filhaber and since optical fibers made of glass are conventional in the art. Doing so would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to match the refractive index between the lens matrix, which is disclosed to be glass (see paragraph 0036), and the optical fibers, reducing loss from refractive index boundaries in the device.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Velikov teaches A fiber exit element according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the entry surfaces are each arranged at an angle to the exit surface (see Fig. 6, surface of lens 54a is considered to be arranged at an angle to the exit surface) and/orwherein the entry surfaces each have at least two sections which are arranged at an angle to one another and/or to the exit surface.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velikov (US 2002/0131703; hereinafter Velikov) in view of Filhaber et al. (US 2003/0231850; hereinafter Filhaber) and further in view of Hwang et al. (KR 20110059213; hereinafter Hwang).
Velikov teachesA fiber exit element (see Figs. 1, 6, and 11)with a plurality of fibers (Fig. 6, optical fibers 56a-n) each having at least one core (since the fiber guides light, it is considered to have at least one core, i.e. the part of the fiber where light travels), each of which is designed to guide a signal light radiation (see paragraph 0042), andwith at least one optical element (Fig. 6, lens matrix 52), which is connected with open ends of the cores of the glass fibers and is designed to obtain the signal ends of the cores of the glass fibers and is designed to obtain the signal light radiation from the open ends of the cores of the glass fibers and to discharge the signal light radiation to outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface (according to paragraph 0042, light propagates from the fibers 56a-n to the lens matrix 52; the lens matrix thus obtains the signal light from the open ends of the cores of the fibers, and the lenses then will discharge the light to the outside as exit radiation via at least one exit surface, being the surface facing away from the optical fibers).
Velikov fails to teach that the optical fiber is a glass fiber. However, glass fibers are conventional in the art. For instance, an optical fiber array wherein the fibers are composed of glass was taught by Filhaber (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide glass fibers for the optical fibers in the Velikov device, since it had previously been taught by Filhaber and since optical fibers made of glass are conventional in the art. Doing so would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to match the refractive index between the lens matrix, which is disclosed to be glass (see paragraph 0036), and the optical fibers, reducing loss from refractive index boundaries in the device.
Modified Velikov fails to teach that the fiber exit element is characterized in that the open ends of the cores of the glass fibers are each integrally bonded to first open ends of transition elements, wherein second open ends of the transition elements are each arranged with penetration depths relative from entry surfaces of the optical element to within a material of the optical element, the second open ends of the transition elements being fused into and within the material of the optical element, andwherein the transition elements are transition fibers which have a core and a sheath which substantially surrounds the core. However, Hwang teaches that tapering the end of an optical fiber at an end formed integrally with a lens improves alignment tolerance when coupling the light from the lens to another component (see translation attached to previous office action, first paragraph page 3). In order to improve alignment tolerances to components on the other side of the optical element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a tapering and a larger lens connected to the ends of the glass fibers in the Velikov device, since it was previously taught by Hwang. In providing this tapering, the tapered region of the fibers would be transition elements having second open ends fused into and within the material of the optical element, since Velikov teaches fusing the ends of the fibers to the optical element (see paragraph 0056, which teaches a modification to the described embodiments, which includes the illustrated embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 6, wherein the ends of the fibers are attached to the lens elements by fusing; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to involve melting the interface where the fiber ends are attached to the lens elements and joining the material, such that the material of the cores is joined with the material of the lens elements; the melting of said interface would ensure the claimed feature of the second open ends of the transition elements being fused into and within the material of the optical element).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velikov (US 2002/0131703; hereinafter Velikov) in view of Filhaber et al. (US 2003/0231850; hereinafter Filhaber) and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2012/0045169; hereinafter Hu).
Modified Velikov teaches a fiber exit element according to claim 1, as applied above. Modified Velikov fails to teach that the exit surface of the optical element has an optical coating, at least in sections. Hu teaches an optical fiber array (Fig. 1A1, fibers 130), connecting to an optical element (Fig. 1A1, base plate 110), wherein in order to improve light transmission, the exit surface of the optical element has an optical coating (anti-reflective coating applied to second surface 112, see paragraph 0076). In order to improve light transmission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat the exit surface of the optical element of the Velikov device with an anti-reflective coating, since it had previously been taught by Hu.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velikov (US 2002/0131703; hereinafter Velikov) in view of Filhaber et al. (US 2003/0231850; hereinafter Filhaber) and further in view of Karlsen et al. (US 2019/0123505; hereinafter Karlsen).
Modified Velikov teaches the fiber exit element according to claim 1, as applied above. Modified Velikov fails to teach that at least one of the glass fibers has at least one sheath which substantially encloses the core, wherein at least one pump light trap is formed in a material of the sheath of the at least one of the glass fibers in a region of the fiber exit element in order to discharge cladding light from the sheath outside the at least one of the glass fibers.
Karlsen teaches a configuration for connecting a fiber (Fig. 2, fiber 224) for transmitting laser light (Fig. 2, fiber laser system 200), with a light trap connected at the end (Fig. 2, light trap 203), wherein the glass fiber has a sheath (fiber conduit or cladding, see paragraph 0019), and the pump light trap is formed in the material of the sheath of the glass fiber in the region of the optical element (see inset of Fig. 2, showing light trap 203, as well as Fig. 3a, showing light trap 303). The light trap of Karlsen is taught to prevent damage to the fiber by dissipating heat (see paragraph 0041), by doing so discharging cladding light from the sheath of the glass fiber to outside the glass fiber. In applications wherein the fiber connector is connecting to a pump laser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect a pump light trap to the fiber in the region of the optical element in order to discharge cladding light from the sheath of the glass fiber outside the glass fiber, in order to prevent damage to the fiber, as was taught by Karlsen.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velikov (US 2002/0131703; hereinafter Velikov) in view of Filhaber et al. (US 2003/0231850; hereinafter Filhaber) and further in view of Shikama et al. (US 2022/0229240; hereinafter Shikama).
Modified Velikov teaches the fiber exit element according to claim 1, as applied above. Velikov fails to teach that the optical element comprises an optical beam splitter. However, Shikama, also related to structures for connecting optical elements at the end of optical fibers (see abstract and Figs. 1-6), does teach that the optical elements connected to the end of optical fibers can include an optical beam splitter (see paragraph 0008). Including an optical beam splitter would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to route the fiber light to different locations and such a structure could easily be integrated with the coupling structure of Velikov. In applications where beam splitting is desired, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an optical beam splitter as part of the fiber exit element of the modified Velikov device since beam splitters are well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights