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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0385026 (“TAKESHITA US”) in view of WO 2023/084707
(“TAKESHITA WO”) and in view of US 2019/0288785 (“WOJTUNIK”).
Regarding claim 1, TAKESHITA US teaches an optical amplification device (200) comprising: an optical fiber amplification unit (230) including a plurality of amplification cores (par. [0046]); a first connection unit (220) being connected to one end of the optical fiber amplification unit; and a second connection unit (240) being connected to another end of the optical fiber amplification unit (FIG. 3), wherein the first connection unit is configured in such a way as to connect a transmission fiber including a plurality of transmission cores to the optical fiber amplification unit (par. [0046]), and the first connection unit and the second connection unit are configured in such a way that a plurality of signal light received by the first connection unit propagate through the first amplification core group and the second amplification core group (FIG. 7).
TAKESHITA US does not teach that the number of the plurality of amplification cores is larger than the number of the plurality of transmission cores. TAKESHITA WO teaches an optical amplification device wherein a number of amplification cores is larger than a number of transmission cores (pg. 3, lines 10-14 of included translation document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the amplification device of TAKESHITA US such that the number of amplification cores is larger than the number of transmission cores, as taught by TAKESHITA WO. The motivation would have been to increase optical coupling efficiency between the fiber amplification unit and thew first connection unit (pg. 3, lines 10-14 of included translation document).
TAKESHITA US also does not teach that the plurality of amplification cores includes a first amplification core group and a second amplification core group which are arranged in parallel in the optical fiber amplification unit. WOJTUNIK teaches a first amplification core group and a second amplification core group which are arranged in parallel in an optical fiber amplification unit (any of 240a, 240b, 240c; FIGs. 3-9; par. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the amplification device of TAKESHITA US such that the plurality of amplification cores includes a first amplification core group and a second amplification core group which are arranged in parallel in the optical fiber amplification unit, as taught by WOJTUNIK. The motivation would have been to allow for frequency dependent amplification (par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, TAKESHITA US teaches that the first connection unit and the second connection unit are configured in such a way that the plurality of signal light propagate through the first amplification core group and the second amplification core group in series
(FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 4, TAKESHITA US teaches that the first connection unit and the second connection unit are configured in such a way that the plurality of signal light propagates through the first amplification core group and the second amplification core group in a same direction in the optical fiber amplification unit (FIG. 7).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the claimed features; namely opposite propagation directions and parallel connections, are mutually exclusive to the claimed features; namely same propagation directions and series connection, set forth in claims 4 and 3, respectively. As such, Examiner concludes that these mutually exclusive features are obvious variants of one another. If Applicant wishes to argue against the obviousness of these mutually exclusive variants, Examiner may revisit a possible election of species requirement.
Regarding claim 7, TAKESHITA US teaches that the first connection unit and the second connection unit are configured in such a way that the plurality of pieces of signal light propagate through the first amplification core group and the second amplification core group in a same direction in the optical fiber amplification unit (FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 8, the claimed feature; namely opposite propagation directions, is mutually exclusive to the claimed feature; namely same propagation directions, set forth in claim 7. As such, Examiner concludes that these mutually exclusive features are obvious variants of one another. If Applicant wishes to argue against the obviousness of these mutually exclusive variants, Examiner may revisit a possible election of species requirement.
Regarding claims 9 and 11-16, TAKESHITA US teaches that the optical fiber amplification unit includes a multicore optical fiber including the plurality of amplification cores doped with a rare-earth ion (par. [0047]), and a double-clad structure (par. [0047]), and each of the first connection unit and the second connection unit includes fan-in/fan-out connection unit
(par. [0048]).
Regarding claim 17, TAKESHITA US teaches an optical amplification method comprising: receiving a plurality of pieces of signal light (from element 210) propagating through a plurality of transmission cores (element 220; par. [0046]); and introducing the plurality of pieces of signal light into a plurality of amplification cores (element 230; par. [0046]); the plurality of amplification cores include a first amplification core group (FIG. 7; element 231) and a second amplification core group (232), and a first connection unit and a second connection unit are configured in such a way that the plurality of pieces of signal light received by the first connection unit are caused to propagate through the first amplification core group and the second amplification core group (FIG. 7).
TAKESHITA US does not teach that the number of the plurality of amplification cores is larger than the number of the plurality of transmission cores. TAKESHITA WO teaches an optical amplification device wherein a number of amplification cores is larger than a number of transmission cores (pg. 3, lines 10-14 of included translation document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the amplification device of TAKESHITA US such that the number of amplification cores is larger than the number of transmission cores, as taught by TAKESHITA WO. The motivation would have been to increase optical coupling efficiency between the fiber amplification unit and thew first connection unit (pg. 3, lines 10-14 of included translation document).
TAKESHITA US also does not teach that the plurality of amplification cores includes a first amplification core group and a second amplification core group which are arranged in parallel in the optical fiber amplification unit. WOJTUNIK teaches a first amplification core group and a second amplification core group which are arranged in parallel in an optical fiber amplification unit (any of 240a, 240b, 240c; FIGs. 3-9; par. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the amplification device of TAKESHITA US such that the plurality of amplification cores includes a first amplification core group and a second amplification core group which are arranged in parallel in the optical fiber amplification unit, as taught by WOJTUNIK. The motivation would have been to allow for frequency dependent amplification (par. [0033]).
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 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 JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Thomas 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874