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.
Drawings
Six (6) sheets of drawings were filed on 10/06/2023 and have been objected to by the examiner.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical fiber, core, cladding ring, and second cladding ring, of claims 1-3, 13, and 15 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, 10-12, 14, 20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 of claim 6 should read “…least 30% less than that of -an optical fiber…”.
Lines 1 of claims 9 and 20 should read “…wherein the ring has a delta n…”.
Lines 1 of claims 10-12, and 14 should all read “…wherein the fiber has a fundamental mode…”.
Line 10 of claim 22 should read “…higher-order mode power overlap of PHOM; and…”.
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 4, 6-7, 9, and 17-18 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 4, 6, and 17-18, line 2 of claims 1 and 13 both recite “…a core having a set of core properties…”. Lines 1-2 of claims 4 and 6, and lines 1-2 of claims 17-18 respectively recite “…wherein LHOM of the optical fiber is at least 1.5 times greater than an optical fiber having the set of core properties…” and “…wherein PHOM of the optical fiber is at least 30% less than an optical fiber having the set of core properties…”. The “…core properties…” of claims 1 and 13 are not bounded and thus do not limit the structure of the fiber of claims 4 and 6, and claims 17-18. Furthermore, the “…an optical fiber…” of claims 4, 6, and 17-18 is/are not claimed, nor is its/their structure limited beyond the absence of a cladding ring that is equivalent to the cladding rings of claims 1 and 13. The claims are indefinite because there is a great deal of confusion regarding the claimed structures of the optical fiber of claims 1 and 13 in so far as they pertain to claims 4, 6, and 17-18, the structure of the optical fiber introduced in claims 4, 6, and 17-18, and to what extent the structure of the optical fiber introduced in claims 4, 6, and 17-18 is/are claimed.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, the limitations of claims 4, 6, and 17-18 have been interpreted broadly in that any individual property of any given core could be considered to fall within (or not fall within) the purview(s) of the “…a set of core properties…” of claims 1 and 13, as said purview(s) pertain(s) to claims 4, 6, and 17-18.
With regards to claim 6, line 1 of the claim recites “The optical fiber of claim 1, wherein the PHOM of the optical fiber…”, but only introduces PHOM as a higher order mode power overlap exhibited by the optical fiber in claim 5 on which claim 6 does not depend. Claim 6 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the PHOM of the optical fiber.
With regards to claim 7, lines 1-2 of the claim recite “…wherein the set of core properties comprise: a core having a delta n less than 2e-3”. A “property” as traditionally defined cannot comprise a physical component (e.g. a core). Furthermore, it is unclear whether an additional core is being claimed, or if the “…the core…” of claim 7 is the same as the core of claim 1, and whether “…having a delta n less than 2e-3…” is the claimed property. The claim is indefinite because there is a great deal of confusion regarding the current scope of the claim.
With regards to claim 9, lines 1-2 of the claim recite “…wherein the ring comprises a delta n < 0.7 x delta n of the ring”. The claim is indefinite because the delta n of the ring must be equal to the delta n of the ring.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, the limitations of claim 9 have been interpreted as stating that the delta n of the ring must be lower than that of the core.
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 1-6, 8-16, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillard (US 20110044595 A1).
With regards to claims 1, 5, 10 and 13-14, Sillard discloses an optical fiber (Fig1), comprising:
a core having a set of core properties (Fig1/Core 11);
a cladding ring around the core (Fig1/Cladding 13); 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…”).
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.
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 1 and 13, Sillard also anticipates/renders obvious the limitations of pertaining to PHOM as they appear in claims 5 and 13.
With regards to claims 2, 3, and 15, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claims 1 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 claims 4 and 17, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claim 1 and 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 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section of this office action).
With regards to claims 6 and 18, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claims 1 and 13, wherein the PHOM of the optical fiber is at least 30% less than an optical fiber having the set of core properties without the cladding ring (See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section of this office action).
With regards to claim 8, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claim 1, wherein the ring starts between 3 microns and 15 microns from the edge of the core (Table 1/r1-r2).
With regards to claims 9 and 20, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claims 1 and 13, wherein the ring comprises a delta n < 0.7 x delta n of the ring (See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section of this office action).
With regards to claims 11 and 21, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claims 1 and 13. Sillard does not explicitly state that the optical fibers of claims 1 and 13 comprise a fundamental mode loss less than 1 dB/m occurring at a bend diameter between 5 cm and 30 cm. However, the claimed properties of claims 11 and 21 are presumed to be inherent to the structure of the optical fiber of claims 1 and 13. When a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). The patentability of a product depends only on the claimed structural limitations of the product. Sillard discloses a fiber that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of these functional characteristics. (See MPEP 2112.01).
The examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of performing the claimed functions, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties or perform the claimed functions is essential.
With regards to claim 12, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claim 1, Sillard does not explicitly state the optical fiber of claim 1 comprises a higher order mode loss greater than 300 dB/m at a bend diameter, wherein the fundamental mode loss is 1dB/m. However, the claimed properties of claim 12 are presumed to be inherent to the structure of the optical fiber of claim 1. When a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). The patentability of a product depends only on the claimed structural limitations of the product. Sillard discloses a fiber that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of these functional characteristics. (See MPEP 2112.01).
The examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of performing the claimed functions, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties or perform the claimed functions is essential.
Claims 7, 19, and 22 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 7 and 19, Sillard discloses the optical fiber of claims 1 and 13, but does not disclose the set of core properties as comprising a core having 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.
With regards to claim 22, Sillard discloses a method of increasing higher-order mode suppression in large mode area fibers, comprising:
providing an optical fiber (Sillard/Fig1) comprising:
a core (Fig1/Core 11);
a cladding ring around the core (Fig1/Cladding ring 13), the cladding ring starting between 3 microns and 15 microns from the edge of the core (Table 1/r2-r1);
wherein the optical fiber exhibits a higher-order mode loss of LHOM and a higher-order mode power overlap of LHOM; and
propagating light through the optical fiber (Paragraph 40/ “…wavelength 1550 nm…” [At least one wavelength of light is propagated within the fiber]).
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 within the method disclosed by Sillard such that the minimum MFD was 14 microns 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. Additionally, Sillard does not disclose the set of core properties as comprising a core having 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 within the method 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillard (US 20110044595 A1) in view of Li (US 20130259426 A1).
With regards to claim 16, Sillard discloses 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 aquire a slope during draw exists in the art as exemplified by Li.
Sillard 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 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
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Sillard (US 20200241199 A1) (Figs1&4)
Wei (US 20030099450 A1) [Fig2]
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