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 filed 1/20/26, regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 based on Uebel (US 2020/0285129), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues filling elements 307 cannot anticipate the claimed “piezo device,” since the same fails to have a variable length which impacts the volume of the fluid. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Filling element 307 comprise a plurality of separate blocks that are added to the cavity 304, and utilizing different numbers of blocks results in the variable length of the device. That is, the use of a single block results in the device having a length L while the use of two blocks results in a device having a length 2L. Accordingly, the device has a variable length, where a change of length results in a change in volume of fluid in the cavity.
Applicant also argues the term “piezo device” would have been understood by one of ordinary skill as a piezoelectric actuator, as the specification provides numerous examples of piezo devices which allow for dynamic control of device to alter its length. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a piezo device comprising a piezoelectric actuator) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Specification fails to specifically define the term “piezo device” as a piezoelectric actuator, and therefore a “piezo device” is broadly considered any device which exerts a pressure on its surrounding environment, including filling element blocks 307.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, and the rejection is maintained. This Action is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uebel et al. (US 2020/0285129 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Uebel et al. discloses a fiber arrangement for providing broadband light ([0077]), comprising:
a hollow core optical fiber 301 (Fig. 9; [0076]), and
at least one housing 302 having a chamber 304 in which a piezo device 307 is arranged, the piezo device 307 having a variable length and the chamber 304 being in fluid communication with a hollow core of the fiber 301 such that a change of length of the piezo device 307 causes a change of the size of a volume which is provided by the hollow core and the chamber for a fluid, the fluid being a gas or a mixture of gases (Fig. 9; [0074].
It is noted the claimed element “piezo device” is sufficiently broad so as to encompass filling elements 307 taught by Uebel et al.
Re. Claim 2, Uebel et al. discloses the housing 302 comprises a through-hole having an opening 303a at a first axial end of the housing and an opening 303b at a second axial end of the housing 302, and wherein the fiber 301 is inserted in the through hole (Fig. 9; [0068], [0074]).
Re. Claim 3, Uebel et al. discloses the housing 302 is a ferrule which is attached to the fiber 301, and wherein the ferrule 302 comprises a tube-like body which provides the through-hole in which the fiber 301 is inserted (Fig. 9; [0067], [0073]-[0074]).
Re. Claim 4, Uebel et al. discloses the housing 302 is a ferrule, and wherein the ferrule is attached to an end of the fiber (e.g., housing 302 attached to each end of the fiber 301 in Fig. 9); or (ii) wherein at least two housings are provided, the at least two housings being ferrules, with one housing of the at least two housings being attached to one end of the fiber and the other housing of the at least two housings being attached to the other end of the fiber (Figs. 8(b)-8(c); [0071]-[0072]).
Re. Claim 5, Uebel et al. discloses an optical window 303a closes the opening of the through-hole on the first axial end of the respective housing 302 and a fiber end is inserted in the second axial end of the through-hole of the housing 302 (Fig. 9; [0068], [0074]).
Re. Claim 6, Uebel et al. discloses the chamber 304 has an annular form and is arranged in a circumferential direction around a through-hole of the housing 302 (Fig. 9; [0074]-[0075]).
Re. Claim 7, Uebel et al. discloses the chamber 304 comprises a center axis which is arranged in parallel or at an angle to a center axis of a through-hole of the housing 302 (Fig. 9).
Re. Claim 8, Uebel et al. discloses the ferrule is a fiber optic ferrule configured to hold and align the fiber (e.g., ferrule 302 aligns the fiber with a pump source to form a broadband light source; [0077]), and wherein the piezo device 307 is arranged in the ferrule such that the volume of the fiber is controlled via the piezo device 307 and via the fiber optic ferrule 302 (Fig. 9; [0074]).
Re. Claim 10, Uebel et al. discloses in a maximally extended position, the piezo device 307 extends over the complete length of the chamber 304 in which the piezo device 307 is arranged (Fig. 9).
Re. Claim 13, Uebel et al. discloses the fiber arrangement is gas-tight ([0072]).
Re. Claim 14, Uebel et al. discloses the fiber 301 is an anti-resonant hollow core fiber or a hollow core photonic bandgap fiber ([0076]).
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uebel et al. (US 2020/0285129 A1).
Re. Claim 15, Uebel et al. discloses an optical system for providing broadband light, the optical system comprising: a fiber arrangement as discussed above; and a pulsed laser source for providing laser pulses to the fiber arrangement (Fig. 9; [0074]).
In Uebel et al., piezo elements 307 are manually added to the housing 302, and therefore Uebel et al. fails to disclose at least one piezo driver for driving the piezo device arranged in at least one housing of the fiber arrangement.
Drivers for automating motion are well known in the art, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Re. Claims 17 and 18, Uebel et al. renders obvious the optical system as discussed above. In addition, the fiber arrangement comprises at least two housings, the at least two housings being ferrules (Figs. 8(a)-8(b)), arranged at a distance from each other along the fiber, wherein the at least one piezo driver is configured to drive the piezo devices of the at least two housings to generate a desired pressure distribution in the hollow core of the fiber, to either generate a homogeneous pressure distribution or a pressure gradient in the hollow core of the fiber ([0072]). In Uebel et al., the fiber arrangement comprises at least one housing, the at least one housing being a ferrule, at each fiber end (Figs. 8(a)-8(b)). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed arrangement for the reasons discussed above.
The same reasoning applied in the rejection of apparatus claims 15, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claims 19, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of (making/using) the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-12, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re. Claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest a fiber arrangement comprising a filling, the filling comprising at least one of a gas tight filling and a filling of a deformable material, is arranged between an outer surface of the piezo device and an inner surface of the chamber, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Re. Claims 11-12, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest a fiber arrangement comprising one or more fluid channels extend in a radial direction through the housing to fluidly connect the chamber with the a through-hole provided in the housing, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Re. Claim 16, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an optical system wherein at least one of: (i) the at least one piezo driver is configured to drive the piezo device in dependence on a pulse repetition rate of the laser pulses, and/or and (ii) wherein by changing the length of the at least one piezo device the change in density or pressure of the fluid is more than 50%, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Uebel et al., discussed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed limitations, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
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 R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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 (571) 272-2397. 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 2/12/26