DETAILED ACTION
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 and 3-25 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.
The claims recite “the first multimode optical fiber,” but said limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1 and 3-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determining a first effective modal bandwidth at a first wavelength of a multimode optical fiber, comparing a first effective modal bandwidth at a first wavelength of a multimode optical fiber with a first effective modal bandwidth threshold at the first wavelength, the multimode optical fiber being in a group of multimode optical fibers meeting a first OM standard, wherein the first wavelength is from 844 nm to 863 nm, comparing a second effective modal bandwidth at a second wavelength of the multimode optical fiber with a second effective modal bandwidth threshold at the second wavelength, the multimode optical fiber being in a group of multimode optical fibers meeting the first OM standard, wherein the second wavelength is from 900 nm to 915 nm; and categorizing the multimode optical fiber as passing a transmission distance requirement if the first effective modal bandwidth of the first multimode optical fiber is greater than or equal to the first effective modal bandwidth threshold and the second effective modal bandwidth of the first multimode optical fiber is greater than or equal to the second effective modal bandwidth threshold, wherein the transmission distance is defined in a transceiver specification, wherein the transceiver specification is one or more of: (a) an 800G bidirectional (BiDi) transceiver specification, or (b) a 100G/lane based MM VCSEL transceiver specification, or (c) a 25Gbaud based transceiver specification, or (d) 50G PAM4 based transceiver specification,” are abstract ideas, as they involve mental process, under the BRI and usage of mathematical concept. The rest of the dependent claims, 2-25 are also abstract ideas, as they are merely defined specification of values. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Molin et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0176285 (hereinafter Molin) in view of Chen et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0032153 (hereinafter Chen)
Regarding Claim 1. Molin discloses selecting a group of multimode optical fibers (Title, Abstract), comprising:
determining a first effective modal bandwidth at a first wavelength of a multimode optical fiber (Paragraphs [0018]-[0021]);
comparing a first effective modal bandwidth at a first wavelength of a multimode
optical fiber with a first effective modal bandwidth threshold at the first wavelength (Paragraph [0032]), the multimode optical fiber being in a group of multimode optical fibers meeting a first OM standard, wherein the first wavelength is from 844 nm to 863 nm (Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], VCSEL and OM4 fibers, [0019], [0034], wavelength ranges), comparing a second effective modal bandwidth at a second wavelength of the multimode optical fiber with a second effective modal bandwidth threshold at the second wavelength, the multimode optical fiber being in a group of multimode optical fibers meeting the first OM standard, wherein the second wavelength is from 900 nm to 915 nm (Paragraphs [0032], [0034]; [0050]-[0058]; [0096]-[0104]; Figs. 3-8), and categorizing the multimode optical fiber as passing a transmission distance requirement if the first effective modal bandwidth of the first multimode optical fiber is greater than or equal to the first effective modal bandwidth threshold and the second effective modal bandwidth of the first multimode optical fiber is greater than or equal to the second effective modal bandwidth threshold (Fig. 3-7, Paragraph [0033], [0043]; [0050]-[0058], [0096]-[0104]);
Molin does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmission distance is defined in a transceiver specification, wherein the transceiver specification is one or more of: (a) an 800G bidirectional (BiDi) transceiver specification, or (b) a 100G/lane based MM VCSEL transceiver specification, or (c) a 25Gbaud based transceiver specification, or (d) 50G PAM4 based transceiver specification.
Chen discloses optical fiber transmission system (Abstract; Paragraph [0003], multimode light source, such as VCSEL); including driving the VCSEL by 50G PAM4 (Paragraphs [0115]-[0117])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Chen in Molin and define the transmission distance in a transceiver specification, wherein the transceiver specification is one or more of: (a) an 800G bidirectional (BiDi) transceiver specification, or (b) a 100G/lane based MM VCSEL transceiver specification, or (c) a 25Gbaud based transceiver specification, or (d) 50G PAM4 based transceiver specification, and thereby efficiently couple the multimode optical fibers with VCSEL for optical transmission and select the high effective modal bandwidth multimode fiber.
Regarding Claim 3. Molin discloses the first OM-standard comprises one of an OM3-standard or an OM4-standard (Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0019]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Molin, US-PGPUB 2017/0176285 in view of Chen, US-PGPUB 2021/0032153 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Bookbinder et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0336559 (hereinafter Bookbinder)
Regarding Claim 4. Molin discloses the first OM-standard comprises one of an OM3-standard or an OM4-standard (Paragraphs [0014]-[0016], [0019]).
Molin does not explicitly disclose the transmission distance is greater than or equal to 70 meters, or greater than or equal to 80 meters, or greater than or equal to 85 meters, or greater than or equal to 90 meters, or greater than or equal to 100 meters, or greater than or equal to 150 meters.
Bookbinder discloses typical transmission distance for OM4 multimode optical fiber from 10 m to 500m (Paragraph [0004])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Bookbinder in the modified Molin and have the transmission distance greater than or equal to 70 meters, or greater than or equal to 80 meters, or greater than or equal to 85 meters, or greater than or equal to 90 meters, or greater than or equal to 100 meters, or greater than or equal to 150 meters, so as to properly select the high effective modal bandwidth multimode fiber at various distances and conditions.
Claims 5-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Molin et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0176285 in view of Chen, US-PGPUB 2021/0032153 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in views of Bookbinder, US-PGPUB 2017/0336559 and Chen et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0086577 (hereinafter Chen-2)
Regarding Claim 5. Molin discloses a VCSEL at various wavelengths, including at 850 nm (Paragraph [0034]; Figs. 4-7), and at various effective modal bandwidth thresholds ([0050]-[0054]).
The modified Molin does not explicitly disclose the transmission distance is 70 meters, the first wavelength is 850 nm, and the first effective modal bandwidth threshold is 2310 MHz.km when the first wavelength is provided by a laser having an RMS line width of 0.60 nm or less.
Bookbinder discloses typical transmission distance for OM4 multimode optical fiber from 10 m to 500m (Paragraph [0004])
Chen-2 discloses RMS linewidth of the VCSEL to be generally less than or equal to about 0.65 nm (Paragraph [0060]-[0061]; Abstract, multimode optical fiber)
At the time of the invention filed, absent criticality, it would have been obvious to use the teachings of Bookbinder, Chen-2 in the modified Molin and have the transmission distance is 70 meters, the first wavelength is 850 nm, and the first effective modal bandwidth threshold is 2310 MHz.km when the first wavelength is provided by a laser having an RMS line width of 0.60 nm or less, so as to properly select the high effective modal bandwidth multimode fiber at various distances and conditions.
Regarding Claims 6-25. Similar to the rejection in claim 5, the rest of the claims 6-25 are merely obvious variation of the transmission distances with respect to various effective modal bandwidths, wavelength RMS line width values, absent criticality, in the endeavor to select the high effective bandwidth fiber. As such, it would have been obvious to use the teachings of Chen, Bookbinder, Chen-2 in Molin and use the varying conditions recited in Claim 6-25, so as to make the proper selection of a high effective modal bandwidth, based on the designer’s choice and objectives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that Molin discloses a single effective modal bandwidth is compared to a single threshold. In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and state that Molin discloses multiple thresholds associated with ranges of effective modal bandwidth (Paragraph [0033], [0043]; [0050]-[0058], [0096]-[0104]).
For the 101 rejection, in Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Section 101 provides that anyone who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" may obtain a patent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claimed invention is an abstract idea of “selecting a group of multimode optical fibers”.
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even the claims that recites specific abstract ideas would not make the claims eligible under 35 USC 101 on its own.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “selecting a group of multimode optical fibers” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims do not recite additional elements. The limitation “determining a first effective modal bandwidth at a first wavelength of a multimode optical fiber,” is an abstract idea that involves mental evaluation and usage of mathematical concept on a measured differential mode delay (DMD) scan. However, the claims do not recite performing any measuring of the DMD. Furthermore, even if it was recited, the measuring of the DMD is not only an insignificant data collection activity, but it is well-understood, routine and conventional.
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines, and do not improve other technology. At most, the claimed invention is an improvement in the abstract idea of “selecting a group of multimode optical fibers”. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible.
Finally, limiting the claims to the technological environment of multimode optical fibers, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “selecting a group of multimode optical fibers”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights