CTFR 18/520,605 CTFR 89698 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 1/28/2026. In virtue of this communication claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application. Response to Amendment In response to the action mailed on 10/28/2025, the Applicant has filed a response amending the claims and a terminal disclaimer. In view of Applicant’s response the double patenting rejection is withdrawn. In view of Applicant’s response the claim interpretation is withdrawn. In view of Applicant’s response the claim objections are withdrawn. In view of Applicant’s response the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn. Response to Arguments The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new references and/or interpretation being made in the current rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryf et al (US Pub 20150085352) in view of Chang et al (US Pub 20150030325) in further view of Tsuchida et al (US Pub 20140240819) . Regarding Claim 1 . Ryf discloses an optical transmission system comprising: an optical transmission path comprising a coupled multi-core optical fiber (MCF) including a plurality of cores through which a plurality of signal lights propagates while the cores are close to each other (Fig 1, where a system (100) comprises an optical transmission path comprising a coupled MCF (e.g. a SDM transmission line 102 and 162) (para [25]) including a plurality of cores (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B) through which a plurality of signal lights propagates while the cores are close to each other (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B)); and an optical repeater in which the optical transmission path is connected to an input side and an output side of the optical repeater (Fig 1, where the system (100) comprises an optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) in which the optical transmission path is connected to an input side and an output side of the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160)), wherein the optical repeater is configured to convert a layout of the plurality of cores included in the MCF on the input side in such a way that the layout is in a non-coupled state in which the cores are separated from each other (Fig 1, where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) converts (e.g. via 110) (as also shown in Fig 3A) a layout of the plurality of cores (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B) included in the MCF (e.g. a SDM transmission line 102 and 162) (para [25]) on the input side in such a way that the layout of the plurality of cores (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B) is in a non-coupled state (i.e. after 110) (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C) in which the cores are separated from each other (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C)), wherein the optical repeater is configured to perform optical amplification of the plurality of signal lights in the non-coupled state (Fig 1, where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) performs optical amplification of the plurality of signal lights in the non-coupled state (i.e. after 110) (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C)), and wherein the optical repeater is connected to the MCF on the output side by reconverting the layout of the converted plurality of cores in such a way that the plurality of signal lights after the optical amplification propagate via cores being close to each other (Fig 1, where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) is connected to the MCF (e.g. a SDM transmission line 102 and 162) (para [25]) on the output side by reconverting (e.g. via 160) (as also shown in Fig 3A) the layout of the converted plurality of cores (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C) in such a way that the plurality of signal lights after the optical amplification propagate via cores being close to each other (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B)). Ryf fails to explicitly disclose the cores being close to each other comprises interfering of signal lights with each other and the cores being separated from each other comprises interference of signal lights being reduced. However, Chang discloses cores being close to each other comprises interfering of signal lights with each other and cores being separated from each other comprises interference of signal lights being reduced (Fig 4, paras [50][51] where cores of a multi-core fiber being close to each other (i.e. at an exit end) comprise interfering of signal lights with each other and cores of a multi-core fiber being separated from each other (i.e. at an entrance end) comprise interference of signal lights being reduced). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the cores as described in Ryf, with the teachings of the cores as described in Chang. The motivation being is that as shown cores of a multi-core fiber being close to each other (i.e. at an exit end) comprise interfering of signal lights with each other and cores of a multi-core fiber being separated from each other (i.e. at an entrance end) comprise interference of signal lights being reduced and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the cores as described in Ryf and better show and illustrate that the cores being close to each other (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B) comprise interfering of signal lights with each other and that the cores being separated from each other (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C) comprise interference of signal lights being reduced i.e. because when a distance between the cores is small there is a coupling of signal lights between adjacent cores and when a distance between the cores is large a coupling of signal lights between adjacent cores is reduced and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical fiber cores) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of known cores as described in Chang into other similar cores as described in Ryf, namely, for better clarifying their operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results. Furthermore, the concept of cores being close to each other (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B) which cause interfering of signal lights with each other and the concept of cores being separated from each other (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C) which cause interference of signal lights being reduced is similar to the concept described in the Applicant’s disclosure (US Pub 20240097397) para [7]. Ryf as modified by Chang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the optical repeater is configured to stabilize optical characteristics of the optical amplification without random changes. However, Tsuchida discloses an optical repeater is configured to stabilize optical characteristics of an optical amplification without random changes (Fig 19, where an optical repeater (300) adopts bidirectional pumping and is configured to stabilize optical characteristics (e.g. Gain, Noise Figure NF) (as shown in Fig 20) of an optical amplification (i.e. at 300) without random changes (i.e. without fluctuations)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical repeater (e.g. 140) as described in Ryf as modified by Chang, with the teachings of the optical repeater (300) as described in Tsuchida. The motivation being is that as shown an optical repeater (300) can adopt bidirectional pumping and can stabilize optical characteristics (e.g. Gain, Noise Figure NF) of an optical amplification (i.e. at 300) without random changes (i.e. without fluctuations) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical repeater (e.g. 140) as described in Ryf as modified by Chang and have the optical repeater (e.g. 140) adopt bidirectional pumping and stabilize optical characteristics (e.g. Gain, Noise Figure NF) of an optical amplification (i.e. at 140) without random changes (i.e. without fluctuations) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical repeater (e.g. 140) with a known technique of a known optical repeater (300) for the purpose of optimally amplifying signal lights by using known bidirectional pumping and which technique improves amplification of individual signal lights and allows for a stable Gain and Noise Figure NF and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical repeaters) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical repeater (300) into another similar optical repeater (e.g. 140), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results. Regarding Claim 2 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida also discloses the optical transmission system, wherein the optical repeater includes a non-coupled MCF including a plurality of cores doped with rare-earth ions and a double-clad structure consisting of an inner clad and an outer clad, and wherein the optical repeater is configured to perform optical amplification of the plurality of signal lights propagating through the non-coupled MCF (Ryf Fig 1, where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) includes a non-coupled MCF (e.g. 140) including a plurality of cores doped with rare-earth ions and a double-clad structure consisting of an inner clad and an outer clad (para [27]), and where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) performs optical amplification of the plurality of signal lights propagating through the non-coupled MCF (e.g. 140)). Regarding Claim 3 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida also discloses the optical transmission system, wherein the optical repeater includes a pumping light source used for light pumping of the rare-earth ions (Ryf Fig 1, where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) includes a pumping light source (130) used for light pumping of the rare-earth ions (i.e. at 140)), and wherein the optical repeater is configured to perform clad-pumping to collectively optically amplify the plurality of signal lights propagating through the non-coupled MCF using a common pumping light source (Ryf Fig 1, where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) is known to perform clad-pumping to collectively optically amplify the plurality of signal lights propagating through the non-coupled MCF (e.g. 140) using a common pumping light source (i.e. 130) (see Mizuno et al (US Pub 20210296847) Fig 1, Fig 2 for details)). Regarding Claim 4 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida also discloses the optical transmission system, wherein a plurality of cores included in the coupled MCF and a plurality of cores included in the non-coupled MCF have different inter-core distances, and wherein a propagation direction of the plurality of signal lights propagating through the optical repeater spatially changes (Ryf Fig 1, Fig 3A, where a plurality of cores (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B) included in the coupled MCF (e.g. a SDM transmission line 102 and 162) (para [25]) and a plurality of cores (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C) included in the non-coupled MCF (e.g. 140) have different inter-core distances, and where a propagation direction of the plurality of signal lights propagating through the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) spatially changes). Regarding Claim 5 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida also discloses the optical transmission system, wherein a condenser lens or an optical deflector for optical propagation is used for a change in an optical spatial layout of the plurality of signal lights (Ryf Fig 1, Fig 3A, where an optical deflector (e.g. 302) (which causes a change in an original path) is used for optical propagation and is used for a change in an optical spatial layout (e.g. as shown in Fig 3A) of the plurality of signal lights). Regarding Claim 8 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida also discloses the optical transmission system, wherein the optical repeater includes a fan-in fan-out (FIFO) connector, and wherein the optical repeater is configured to use the FIFO for layout conversion between the plurality of cores included in the coupled MCF and the plurality of cores in the non-coupled state (Ryf Fig 1, where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) includes a fan-in fan-out (FIFO) connecting means (as shown in Fig 3A), and where the optical repeater (e.g. 110, 140, 160) uses the FIFO connecting means (as shown in Fig 3A) for layout conversion between the plurality of cores (e.g. as shown in Fig 3B) included in the coupled MCF (e.g. a SDM transmission line 102 and 162) (para [25]) and the plurality of cores in the non-coupled state (i.e. after 110) (e.g. as shown in Fig 3C)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryf et al (US Pub 20150085352) in view of Chang et al (US Pub 20150030325) in further view of Tsuchida et al (US Pub 20140240819) in further view of Imamura (US Pub 20130302002) . Regarding Claim 6 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida fails to explicitly disclose the optical transmission system, wherein for the multiple cores included in the coupled MCF, the inter-core distance of the plurality of the cores is equal to or less than 25 micrometers, and a crosstalk between the plurality of cores is at a level equal to or more than −15 decibels. However, Imamura discloses for multiple cores included in a coupled MCF, the inter-core distance of the plurality of the cores is equal to or less than 25 micrometers, and a crosstalk between the plurality of cores is at a level equal to or more than −15 decibels (Fig 3, Fig 7, where for multiple cores included in a coupled MCF (as shown in Fig 3), the inter-core distance of the plurality of the cores is equal to 25 μm (as shown in Fig 7), and a crosstalk between the plurality of cores is at a level equal to -15 dB (as shown in Fig 7)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida, with the teachings of the cores as described in Imamura. The motivation being is that as shown a coupled MCF can have an inter-core distance of a plurality of the cores equal to 25 μm and a crosstalk between the plurality of cores equal to -15 dB and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida and have the coupled MCF (e.g. a SDM transmission line 102 and 162) with an inter-core distance of a plurality of the cores equal to 25 μm and a crosstalk between the plurality of cores equal to -15 dB i.e. as an alternative so as to have the cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang with a known technique of known cores as described in Imamura for the purpose of optimally re-arranging the distance between the cores in order to achieve a desired and optimal crosstalk level and which technique improves transmission for a 100 m length and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical fiber cores) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of known cores as described in Imamura into other similar cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang, namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results. Regarding Claim 7 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida fails to explicitly disclose the optical transmission system, wherein a crosstalk between the plurality of cores includes in the non-coupled MCF is at a level equal to or less than −20 decibels. However, Imamura discloses a crosstalk between a plurality of cores included in a non-coupled MCF is at a level equal to or less than −20 decibels (Fig 3, Fig 7, where a crosstalk between a plurality of cores included in a non-coupled MCF (as shown in Fig 3) with an inter-core distance of 35 μm (as shown in Fig 7) is at a level equal to or less than −20 decibels (e.g. -15 dB) (as shown in Fig 7)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida, with the teachings of the cores as described in Imamura. The motivation being is that as shown a non-coupled MCF can have an inter-core distance of 35 μm and be at a level equal to or less than −20 decibels (e.g. -15 dB) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida and have the non-coupled MCF (e.g. 140) with an inter-core distance of 35 μm and be at a level equal to or less than −20 decibels (e.g. -15 dB) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang with a known technique of known cores as described in Imamura for the purpose of optimally re-arranging the distance between the cores in order to achieve a desired and optimal crosstalk level and which technique improves transmission for a 100 m length and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical fiber cores) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of known cores as described in Imamura into other similar cores as described in Ryf as modified by Chang, namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryf et al (US Pub 20150085352) in view of Chang et al (US Pub 20150030325) in further view of Tsuchida et al (US Pub 20140240819) in further view of Sethumadhavan et al (US Pub 20130236175) . Regarding Claim 9 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida fails to explicitly disclose the optical transmission system, wherein the optical repeater includes a plurality of single-core optical fibers (SCFs) where each of the plurality of single-core optical fibers includes a single core doped with rare-earth ions and a clad surrounding the single core, and wherein the optical repeater is configured to perform optical amplification of the plurality of signal lights propagating through each of the plurality of SCFs. However, Sethumadhavan discloses an optical repeater includes a plurality of single-core optical fibers (SCFs) where each of the plurality of single-core optical fibers includes a single core doped with rare-earth ions and a clad surrounding the single core (Fig 2, where an optical repeater (240) includes a plurality of single-core optical fibers (SCFs) (between 230 and 250) and where each of the plurality of single-core optical fibers includes a single core doped with rare-earth ions (i.e. EDFAs) and where it is known that a clad surrounds the single core for light transmission), and wherein the optical repeater performs optical amplification of the plurality of signal lights propagating through each of the plurality of SCFs (Fig 2, where the optical repeater (240) performs optical amplification of the plurality of signal lights propagating through each of the plurality of SCFs (between 230 and 250)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical repeater (e.g. 140) as described in Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida, with the teachings of the optical repeater (240) as described in Sethumadhavan. The motivation being is that as shown an optical repeater (240) can include a plurality of single-core optical fibers (SCFs) (between 230 and 250) and where each of the plurality of single-core optical fibers includes a single core doped with rare-earth ions (i.e. EDFAs) for optical amplification and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical repeater (e.g. 140) as described in Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida and have the optical repeater (e.g. 140) include a plurality of single-core optical fibers (SCFs) and where each of the plurality of single-core optical fibers includes a single core doped with rare-earth ions (i.e. EDFAs) for optical amplification i.e. as an alternative so as to have an optical repeater (240) instead of the optical repeater (e.g. 140) for the purpose of optimally amplifying signal lights and which technique improves amplification of individual signal lights and allows for simpler system expansion and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical repeaters) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical repeater (240) into another similar optical repeater (e.g. 140), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results. Regarding Claim 10 . Ryf as modified by Chang and Tsuchida and Sethumadhavan also discloses the optical transmission system, wherein the optical repeater includes a plurality of pumping light sources used for light pumping of the rare earth ions (Sethumadhavan Fig 2, where the optical repeater (240) is known to include a plurality of pumping light sources used for light pumping of the rare earth ions (i.e. EDFAs) (see Liew et al (US Pub 20190020169) Fig 1 for details)), and wherein the optical repeater is configured to perform core-pumping to optically amplify each of the plurality of signal lights propagating through each of the plurality of SCFs using the plurality of the pumping light sources (Sethumadhavan Fig 2, where the optical repeater (240) is known to perform core-pumping to optically amplify each of the plurality of signal lights propagating through each of the plurality of SCFs (between 230 and 250) using the plurality of the pumping light sources (see Liew et al (US Pub 20190020169) Fig 1, Fig 3 for details)). Regarding Claim 11 , Claim 11 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Regarding Claim 12 , Claim 12 is similar to claim 2, therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2. Regarding Claim 13 , Claim 13 is similar to claim 3, therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Regarding Claim 14 , Claim 14 is similar to claim 4, therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4. Regarding Claim 15 , Claim 15 is similar to claim 5, therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5. Regarding Claim 16 , Claim 16 is similar to claim 6, therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Regarding Claim 17 , Claim 17 is similar to claim 7, therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7. Regarding Claim 18 , Claim 18 is similar to claim 8, therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8. Regarding Claim 19 , Claim 19 is similar to claim 9, therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9. Regarding Claim 20 , Claim 20 is similar to claim 10, therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DIBSON J SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 2 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 3 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 4 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 5 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 6 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 7 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 8 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 9 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 10 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 11 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 12 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 13 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 14 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 15 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 16 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/520,605 Page 17 Art Unit: 2634
Prosecution Insights