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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this particular case, the applicant claims the limitation of “wherein the outer diameter of the photonic crystal fiber is less than 125 um” which does not appear to be supported anywhere in the current specification. The specification only mentions “a cladding diameter to be 125 um” ([Specification [0020]). Paragraph [0020] cladding diameter is not the same as an “outer diameter” of the fiber. Furthermore, the specification does not indicate the cladding diameter to be less 125 um. The examiner will treat the limitations of “wherein the outer diameter of the photonic crystal fiber is less than 125 um” to mean “wherein the cladding diameter of the photonic crystal fiber is 125 um” for the purpose examination of which is consistent with applicant’s specification ([0020]).
Further the limitations of “wherein the minimum wavelength is greater than 14 um” is also not supported my specification. The specification only mentions the term “minimum wavelength” twice in Paragraph [0008] and [0012]. However, there is no mention as to what the minimum wavelength value may be. The only example of any wavelength values being mentions are relating to operating wavelength values wherein the lowest disclosed value is 1460 nm which is 1.46 um not the claimed greater than 14 um. The examiner will treat the limitations of “wherein the minimum wavelength is greater than 14 um” to mean “wherein the operating wavelength is greater than 1.46 um” for the purpose of examination of which is more consistent of the applicant’s specification.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Mukasa 2013/0084077US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Matsui 2018/0172902US.
In terms of Claim 1, Mukasa teaches a photonic crystal fiber (Figure 1) in which a plurality of holes (Figure 1: 13) are formed in a cladding (Figure 1: 12), having a uniform light refractive index ([0083]), capable of propagating three modes of a fundamental mode ([0092]), a first higher-order mode ([0092]), and a second higher-order mode ([0092]), wherein the plurality of holes are disposed in a triangular lattice pattern (Figure 1: L1) so as to surround a center of the photonic crystal fiber with no hole disposed at the center of the photonic crystal fiber (Figure 1: 11), and the photonic crystal fiber has a uniform ratio d/A of a diameter d of each of the holes to a pitch A between the holes (Figure 1) such that a confinement loss of a third higher-order mode at a minimum wavelength within a used wavelength range is 1.0 dB/m or more ([0010]) and a confinement loss at a maximum wavelength is 0.001 dB/km or less ([0010]).
Mukasa does not teach wherein the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 36, the plurality of holes are three layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber.
Matsui does teach a photonic crystal fiber having the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 36 (Figure 4: 2), the plurality of holes are three layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber (Figure 4: 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter to modify the fibers to have exactly 36 fibers holes in 3-layer configurations in order to reduce the complexity of manufacturing and simply manufacturing steps required for the device. This will produce a fiber that has high coupling efficiency.
In regards to Claim 2, Mukasa / Matsui teaches the device of Claim 1.
Mukasa does not teach wherein the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 36, the plurality of holes are three layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber, the d/ λ is between 0.62 and 0.69 inclusive, and the λ is between 18.0 and 21.5 inclusive;
Matsui does teach a photonic crystal fiber having the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 36 (Figure 4: 2), the plurality of holes are 3 layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber (Figure 4: 2), the d/ λ is between 0.62 and 0.69 inclusive (Figure 7), and the λ is between 18.0 and 21.5 inclusive (Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the to have 3 layers with 36 holes having diameter d (.60-.75) and pitch λ 18-22 profile in order to optimize the coupling loss of the fiber. This will produce a fiber that has high coupling efficiency. The reduction of layers and holes as taught by Matsui will reduce the additional steps require to manufacturing a fiber having higher number of holes and layers in order to save time and simply the manufacturing process.
As for Claim 3, Mukasa / Matsui teaches the photonic crystal fiber according to claim 1, wherein Mukasa teaches the d/ λ is between 0.58 and 0.72 inclusive (Figure 39-40 or [0124]), and the Λ is between 8.0 and 21.5 inclusive (Figure 39-40 or [0124]).
In regards to Claim 4, Mukasa / Matsui teaches the device of Claim 1.
Mukasa does not teach wherein the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 18, the plurality of holes are two layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber, the d/ λ is between 0.67 and 0.72 inclusive, and the λ is between 18.0 and 22.5 inclusive.
Matsui does teach a photonic crystal fiber wherein the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 18 (Figure 4: 2), the plurality of holes are two layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber (Figure 4: 2), the d/ λ is between 0.67 and 0.72 inclusive, and the λ is between 18.0 and 22.5 inclusive (Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter d/ λ (.60-.75) and pitch λ 18-22 profile in order to optimize the coupling loss of the fiber while balancing the cost of manufacturing by reducing the number of holes or layers of holes. This will produce a fiber that has high coupling efficiency.
As for Claim 5, Mukasa / Matsui teaches the photonic crystal fiber according to claim 1, wherein Mukasa teaches the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 18 (Figure 1: 13), the plurality of holes are two layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber (Figure 1), the d/ λ is between 0.67 and 0.73 inclusive (Figure 4), and the λ is between 10.0 and 22.5 inclusive (Figure 4).
Mukasa does not teach wherein the plurality of holes is 18 and having two layers.
Matsui does teach a photonic crystal fiber wherein the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 18 (Figure 4: 2), the plurality of holes are two layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber (Figure 4: 2), the d/ λ is between 0.67 and 0.72 inclusive, and the λ is between 18.0 and 22.5 inclusive (Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter d/ λ (.60-.75) and pitch λ 18-22 profile in order to optimize the coupling loss of the fiber while balancing the cost of manufacturing by reducing the number of holes or layers of holes. This will produce a fiber that has high coupling efficiency.
In regards to Claim 7, Mukasa / Matsui teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein Mukasa teaches an outer diameter of the photonic crystal fiber is than 125 um (Claim 18; [0086]) and the minimum wavelength is greater than 1.46 um (figure 39 and 40).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukasa 2013/0084077US / Matsui 2018/0172902US as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Hayashi 2013/0243381.
In regards to claim 6, Mukasa / Matsui teaches the photonic crystal fiber according to claim 1.
Mukasa / Matsui do not teach wherein the photonic crystal fiber has the d/ λ such that a bending loss at the minimum wavelength within the used wavelength range is 0.5 dB/100 turns or less at a bending radius of 30 mm.
Hayashi does teach fiber having a cladding area (Figure 1: 140 cladding; [0220]) has the d/ λ such that a bending loss at the minimum wavelength within the used wavelength range is 0.5 dB/100 turns or less at a bending radius of 30 mm ([0220]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimension of the pitch and diameter within the cladding and dimension of Hayashi to produce a fiber with a bending loss 0.5 dB/100 turns or less at a bending radius of 30 mm this will limit the bending loss for fibers having lengths of 30 mm or optimize the coupling efficiency of fibers with 30 mm radius lengths.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this instant, the applicant has amended the limitations of “wherein the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 36, the plurality of holes are three layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber” which was previously part of Claim 2 and reject in view of Matsui.
The examiner has adjusted the rejection to claim 1 to include the limitations of “wherein the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 36, the plurality of holes are three layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber” in view of the same grounds as previously presented in the non-final rejection over the prior art of Matsui as detailed above.
Matsui does teach a photonic crystal fiber having the number of holes of the plurality of holes is 36 (Figure 4: 2), the plurality of holes are three layers of holes surrounding the center of the photonic crystal fiber (Figure 4: 2), hence the grounds of rejection in the non-final rejection is maintained.
The applicant further argues the prior Mukasa and Matsui are not combinable because the fiber of Mukasa requires strong confinement while the device of Matsui will have more loss due to having less layers (Remarks Pages 4 and 5).
The examiner respectfully disagrees, Mukasa acknowledge that possible trade-offs are possible and expected. Mukasa indicates that less layers will produce more loss and that his cable is capable of having less layers ([0131] which discloses the cable of Mukasa may have six or less layers and that less layers reduce the complexity of manufacturing and make manufacturing the device easier). Thus, the examiner considers the combination to be reasonable because Mukasa has indicated or suggested that such an embodiment is possible ([0131]).
Lastly, newly added claim 7 has also been rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication to Imamura 2009/0097810US teaches a photonic crystal fiber having a diameter and a pitch with multiple holes in the cladding layer.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights