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 October 23, 2025 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, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poletti (GB 2583352 A from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 1, Poletti discloses an anti-resonant optical component (Fig. 7), which comprises a hollow core (see abstract) extending along a component longitudinal axis, a sheath (55) surrounding the hollow core with a circumferential inner side facing the hollow core and anti-resonance elements of a first type (50), each of which are respectively of arcuate design in cross section as seen in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the component, with a left-hand arc end and with a right-hand arc end and with a bulge toward the hollow core, the arc ends being connected to the inside of the sheath at contact points and, together with the inside of the sheath, spanning a curvature surface; and wherein a second type (51) of anti-resonance elements is provided, anti-resonance elements of the second type being nested with anti-resonance elements of the first type (50) in the sense that in the cross section as seen in the direction of the component longitudinal axis at least one anti-resonance element of the second type is arranged within a curvature interior space bounded by the curvature surface in Fig. 7.
Still regarding claim 1, Poletti teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the nested anti-resonance elements of the second type being circular or oval in cross section. However, Poletti describes the curvature of the curved portions as “an arc of a circle or an arc of an ellipse, which is less than, or greater than, a semi-circle or semi-ellipse” and that “[o]ther curved or smoothly varying shapes or profiles may be used” on page 11, lines 11-15. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any well-known and commonly used curved shape, including circular or oval, as a matter of obvious design choice depending on the application.
Regarding claim 3, Poletti discloses the nested anti-resonance elements of the second type (51) are each connected to the inside of the sheath in Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 4, Poletti discloses the nested anti-resonance elements of the second type (51) each have no contact with the arcuate anti-resonance element of the first type (50) in Fig. 13.
Regarding claim 6, Poletti discloses at least four anti-resonance elements of the first type (50) are distributed evenly around the inside of the sheath (55), the arc ends of adjacent anti-resonance elements of the first type being in contact with one another on page 19, lines 12-17.
Regarding claim 7, Poletti discloses at least four anti-resonance elements of the first type (50) are distributed evenly around the inside of the sheath (55), the arc ends of adjacent anti- resonance elements of the first type not having any contact with one another in Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 9, Poletti discloses the anti-resonance elements of the first type (50) in cross section as seen in the direction of the component longitudinal axis are formed in the shape of an inner arc (51) and a nested outer arc (50), each having a left-hand arc end and a right-hand arc end and having a bulge toward the hollow core, the left-hand arc ends of the nested outer arc and of the inner arc each being connected to one another, and the right-hand arc ends of the nested outer arc and of the inner arc each being connected to one another in Fig. 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poletti (GB 2583352 A from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Benabid et al. (EP 3008021 B1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 8, Poletti teaches the claimed invention except for anti-resonance elements arranged between adjacent anti-resonance elements of the first type. Benabid discloses an optical fiber (10 in Fig. 3) comprising a hollow core (16) and anti-resonance elements (20PA) arranged between adjacent anti-resonance elements of a first type (20GA), said anti-resonance element being connected to the adjacent anti-resonance elements of the first type and to the inside (23) of the sheath. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use anti-resonance elements arranged between adjacent anti-resonance elements of the first type as disclosed by Benabid in the optical fiber of Poletti for the purpose of adjusting the core contour and reducing transmission losses. Since Poletti discloses anti-resonance elements comprising nested first and second types, in the proposed combination the anti-resonance elements of Benabid which are provided between adjacent anti-resonance elements would constitute the claimed third type.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed October 23, 2025, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that Poletti does not teach or suggest the nested anti-resonance elements of the second type being circular or oval in cross section. However, Poletti at page 11, lines 11-15 states “the curve may be a semi-circle, or a semi-ellipse” and also “the curve may be part of a circumference or perimeter of a circle or an ellipse.” The “curve” refers to curved portion 52, which corresponds any of the anti-resonance elements including the nested anti-resonance elements of the second type, as shown in Fig. 5B and Fig. 7. Thus, the nested anti-resonance elements of the second type can have a curvature of a partial circle, which would meet the broadest reasonable definition of “circular.”
On page 11, Applicant states that Poletti’s description is “is not meant to suggest entire circles or ovals.” However, claim 1 does not require “entire” circles. The term “entire circle” does not appear in Applicant’s specification and the drawings include embodiments where the nested anti-resonance elements of the second type are not entire circles, such as in Fig. 1(f). It has been held that “reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court held that the USPTO is not required, in the course of prosecution, to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as a court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. Rather, the “PTO applies to verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.” Applicant has not pointed to any special definition of the term “circular” which requires an “entire circle.” Thus, Poletti’s nested anti-resonance elements of the second type having a curvature of a partial circle read on the “circular” limitation of claim 1.
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 February 18, 2026