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 February 12, 2026 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over British Telecommunications (EP 0978738 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Guan et al. (CN 115128729 A), further in view of Park et al. (US 2008/0037935 A1) and further in view of Aoki (WO 2022/009950 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, British Telecommunications discloses a method of manufacturing a fiber Bragg grating, the method comprising: transmitting electromagnetic radiation characterized by a wavelength of 150 nm to 400 nm (paragraph 0017) and longer through a pattern of a phase shift mask (3) to diffract the electromagnetic radiation to form an interference pattern to be illuminated onto a core of a first end of a fiber optical cable region (10), the fiber optical cable region having a first end opposite of a second end, and a nanofiber cavity region defined between the first end and the second end; causing a formation of a first fiber Bragg grating (B1) onto the core of fiber optical cable region by changing a refractive index of the core of fiber optical cable region using the electromagnetic radiation while rotating the fiber optical cable region about an axis defined along a length of the fiber optical cable region to form the first fiber Bragg grating configured with a plurality of symmetric patterns around a core of the fiber optical cable region and along a longitudinal region normal to a cross-section of the fiber optical cable region: and forming a second fiber Bragg grating (B2) at a second end of the fiber optical cable region and the second fiber Bragg grating configured with a plurality of symmetric patterns of a plurality of refractive index modulations around a core of the fiber optical cable region (paragraphs 0016-0021).
Still regarding claims 1-3, British Telecommunications discloses “further rotation of the fibre around its longitudinal axis 8, 8’ facilitates the formation of symmetrical interference patterns.” Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to form azimuthally symmetric patterns of a plurality of refractive index modulations 360 degrees in angle around a core of the fiber to have complete symmetry around the longitudinal axis for the fiber.
Still regarding claims 1-3, British Telecommunications teaches the claimed invention except for a nanofiber cavity. Guan discloses an optical fiber (Fig. 3) comprising a nanofiber cavity (102) defined between first and second ends having respective fiber Bragg gratings (103). Since both of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a nanofiber cavity as disclosed by Guan in the device of British Telecommunications for the purpose of providing sensing capability.
Still regarding claims 1-3, the proposed combination of British Telecommunications and Guan teaches the claimed invention except for the device being polarization-degenerate. Park discloses an optical fiber comprising first and second Bragg gratings (Fig. 8) which is polarization-degenerate so as to be adapted to any arbitrary polarization states of light without causing one or more different resonant frequencies, and are free from any different resonant frequencies in the abstract and paragraph 0053. Since all of the inventions relate to optical fibers, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form a polarization-degenerate effect as disclosed by Park in the optical fiber of the proposed combination of British Telecommunications and Guan for the purpose of cancelling birefringence and enhancing optical transmission.
Still regarding claims 1-3, the proposed combination of British Telecommunications, Guan and Park teaches the claimed invention except for the device used in a quantum computer or quantum repeater. Aoki discloses a fiber optical cable (13-m in Figs. 1-4) having a fiber optical cable region which is a Bragg grating nanofiber cavity (131-m) used in a quantum computer in the abstract and accompanying description of Figs. 1-4. Since all of the inventions relate to optical fibers, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a fiber optical cable as part of a quantum computer or quantum repeater as disclosed by Aoki in the optical device of the proposed combination of British Telecommunications, Guan and Park for the purpose of enabling high-speed processing based on quantum mechanics.
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination of British Telecommunications, Guan, Park and Aoki teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the length of the nanofiber cavity region. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed length, 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.
Regarding claims 5-7, the proposed combination of British Telecommunications, Guan, Park and Aoki teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the characteristics of the first and second Bragg gratings. However, British Telecommunications discusses the grating periodicity (paragraphs 0034-0035) and length (paragraph 0057), and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed modulation period, cross section and length, 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.
Regarding claim 8, the proposed combination of British Telecommunications, Guan, Park and Aoki teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the exposure characteristics. However, British Telecommunications discusses using a laser focused at a predetermined spot size (paragraphs 0016-0017) at an exposure time (paragraph 0040), and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed exposure characteristics, 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.
Regarding claim 9, the proposed combination of British Telecommunications, Guan, Park and Aoki teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the distance between gratings. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed distance between gratings depending on the length of the nanofiber cavity, 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.
Regarding claim 10, Guan, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the first fiber Bragg grating and the second fiber Bragg grating are configured on each side of a tapered region coupled to a nanofiber region in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 11, British Telecommunications discloses the gratings characterized by a plurality of patterns imprinted on a silicon dioxide material in paragraph 0002.
Regarding claim 12, the proposed combination of British Telecommunications, Guan, Park and Aoki teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the speed of rotation. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed rotation speed in order to expedite the manufacturing process, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 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 March 5, 2026