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 .
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/05/2025 has been considered and entered.
The objection to the drawings set forth in the office action received 02/05/2026 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s arguments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments filed 06/05/2026 with regards to claims 1 and 22 (and the respective dependent claims) have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection.
The applicant’s arguments filed 06/05/2026 with regards to claim 13 (and the respective dependent claims) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 13, applicant has argued that “…Sillard fails to disclose, teach, or suggest amended claim 13…” and “…The Office Action has not established that Sillard discloses or suggests an optical fiber having the claimed low-delta-n core together with the claimed ring positioning and the recited higher order mode properties…”. However, applicant amended claim 13 by incorporating the limitation “…a core having a delta n less than 2e-3…” that was previously within claim 19 (now cancelled). Examiner has previously addressed cancelled claim 19 with the combination of Sillard and Pare (See the 35 USC 103 section of this office action). Applicant has not made any arguments addressing how Sillard and Pare together do not disclose amended claim 13. Thus, examiner maintains the rejection of claim 13 (and the respective dependent claims).
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, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (See MPEP § 2172.01). In the instant case, the claimed fiber requires a core and a cladding ring surrounding the core, but it is unclear what structural features (if any) exist between the core and cladding ring within the claimed fiber. The instant specification suggests that the cladding ring may be within a separate cladding (paragraph 7) but does not further describe this cladding. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
The cooperative relationship between
the element(s) between the core and the cladding ring, and
the core.
The cooperative relationship between
the element(s) between the core and the cladding ring, and
the cladding ring.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-18, and 20-21 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1 and 13 on which they depend.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-18, and 20-22 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.
With regards to claims 1, 13, and 22:
The claims recite “…the cladding ring having a delta n less than 0.7 times the delta n of the core…” and/or “…a core having a delta n less than 2e-3…” . The term delta n is traditionally understood to refer to a difference in refractive indices. It is unclear if delta n in the above cases is referring to a refractive index deference within the referenced element (I.E, a difference in RI between different locations within the core), a difference in refractive index between the referenced element and a different element (I.E, a difference in RI between the core and the cladding), or some other interpretation.
The claims each recite “…a cladding ring around the core, the cladding ring starting between 3 microns and 15 microns from an edge of the core…”. Examiner understands the term “starting” to be used to describe physical characteristics and/or location of cladding ring with respect to the core in the above claims. However, it is unclear where the “starting” portion is with respect to the ring itself. For example, it is unclear if the starting portion is describing a point on the outside surface of the ring, a point on the inside surface of the ring. Figure 1b appears to suggest that the ring has a bounded thickness, but no such bound is apparent within the claims.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the LHOM of the optical fiber is at least 1.5 times greater than that of a comparable optical fiber having the core without the cladding ring…”. The above limitation appears to further limit the scope of claim 1 by defining the structure of the claimed fiber through a comparison with a second structurally distinct fiber. However, it is unclear what exactly constitutes a “comparable optical fiber”. It is unclear whether or not any fibers that lack a cladding ring would constitute a comparable optical fiber.
The limitations are indefinite because they create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-18, and 20-21 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1 and 13 on which they depend.
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillard (US 20110044595 A1) in view of Pare (US 20110081123 A1).
With regards to claims 13-14, Sillard discloses an optical fiber (Fig1), comprising:
a core (Fig1/Core 11);
a cladding ring around the core the cladding ring starting between 3 microns and 15 microns from an edge of the core (Table 1/r1-r2); and
wherein the optical fiber exhibits a higher-order mode loss of LHOM (Paragraph 19/Lines 12-18; Paragraph 41/Lines 5-17) and a higher-order mode power overlap of PHOM (Paragraph 41/“…the fundamental mode…”; Paragraph 41/“…LP11…”); and
wherein the optical fiber exhibits a higher-order mode loss of LHOM (Paragraph 19/Lines 12-18; Paragraph 41/Lines 5-17) and a higher-order mode power overlap of PHOM (Paragraph 41/ “…the fundamental mode…”; Paragraph 41/“…LP11; [See examiner’s note below]).
Sillard does not explicitly state that the fundamental mode effective mode-field diameter (MFD) must be between 14 microns and 37-40 microns, but does disclose an embodiment where the MFD is between 11.5 microns and 17 microns (Paragraph 54/Lines 3-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fiber disclosed by Sillard such that the minimum MFD was 14 microns since doing so would improve optical compatibility with high powered lasers 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.
Sillard does not specifically state that the core has a delta n less than 2e-3. However, the practice of configuring a core such that it has a delta n of less than 2e-3 exists in the art as exemplified by Pare.
Sillard and Pare are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fibers. Sillard discloses an optical fiber with a core and cladding ring. Pare discloses an optical fiber with a cladding ring and a core with a delta n of less than 2e-3 (Pare/Fig5a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the core of the fiber disclosed by Sillard such that it had a delta n of less than 2e-3 as suggested by Pare since doing so would improve the transmission of the fundamental mode.
Examiner’s note: Sillard specifically discloses a fundamental mode and a higher order mode. Since PHOM isn't limited to a particular value or range, neither is the higher-order mode power overlap. Therefore, since Sillard anticipates/renders obvious the remaining limitations of claim 13, Sillard also anticipates/renders obvious the limitations of pertaining to PHOM.
With regards to claim 15, Sillard and Pare together disclose the optical fiber of claim and 13, further comprising a second cladding ring around the core (Fig1/Second cladding ring 12) and a trench (Fig2/Trench [Depression defined by difference between r2 and r3]).
With regards to claim 17, Sillard and Pare together disclose the optical fiber of claim 13, wherein LHOM of the optical fiber is at least 1.5 times greater than an optical fiber having the set of core properties without the cladding ring (See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action).
With regards to claim 18, Sillard and Pare together disclose the optical fiber of claim 13, wherein the PHOM of the optical fiber is at least 30% less than an optical fiber having the core without the cladding ring (See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action).
With regards to claim 20, Sillard and Pare together disclose the optical fiber of claim 13, wherein the ring has a delta n < 0.7 x delta n of the core (See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillard (US 20110044595 A1) and Pare (US 20110081123 A1) in further view of Li (US 20130259426 A1).
With regards to claim 16, Sillard and Pare together disclose the optical fiber of claim 13, but is silent regarding whether or not the sides of the cladding ring acquire a slope during draw. However, the process of configuring the sides of a cladding ring such that they acquire a slope during draw exists in the art as exemplified by Li.
Sillard, Pare and Li are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fibers. Sillard discloses an optical fiber with a core and a ring. Li discloses an optical fiber with a core and a ring wherein the sides of the cladding ring acquire a slope during drawing (Li/Paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sides of the cladding ring disclosed by Sillard and Pare such that they acquired a slope during draw as suggested by Li since deviation from a rectangular profile is a known effect of doping and related diffusion (Li/Paragraph 55).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights