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 on 4/21/26 with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, 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., corner resonators) 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). Secondly, Regarding applicant’s argument, “Alkeskjold does not discuss first type features at its corner resonators being designed to support the optical mode with effective refractive index, n1, at an optical signal wavelength, λ1”, Examiner respectfully asserts that pars. 0042, 0070, 0072, 0073, 0090 and 0091 teaches that the first type inner cladding features, thus including the corner resonators, supports a mode that is coupled amongst the first type inner cladding features. Thus all of the first type inner cladding features (resonators) support the optical mode with effective refractive index, n1, at an optical signal wavelength, λ1. Thirdly, in response to applicant's argument that Alkeskjold does not discuss first type features at its corner resonators being designed to support the optical mode with effective refractive index, n1, at an optical signal wavelength, λ1, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the set” in line 25 should read “a set”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 9 and 17 – 22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: \
Regarding claims 1 – 9 and 18 – 22:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an optical fiber comprising, among other things, wherein no first type of feature is surrounded by less than six nearest neighbors of the second type of feature.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Alkeskjold (U.S. PG Pub. # 2013/0114129A1), teaches that six of the first type feature is surrounded by less than six nearest neighbors of the second type of feature (figs. 5 and 6 of the outermost areas of the hexagonal shape).
Regarding claim 17:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an optical fiber comprising, among other things, wherein the inner cladding region comprises no more than 24 resonators.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Alkeskjold (U.S. PG Pub. # 2013/0114129A1), teaches 30 resonators (figs. 5 and 6).
Claim 15 is 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.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the down-doped regions are formed by doping the outer background material with boron or fluorine.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Alkeskjold (U.S. PG Pub. # 2013/0114129 A1), fails to teach or suggest the down-doped region (9) being doped as claimed.
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 10 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alkeskjold (U.S. PG Pub. # 2013/0114129 A1).
In Re claim 10, ‘129 teaches an optical fiber for guiding an optical signal (figs. 5 or 6), said optical fiber having a longitudinal, optical axis and a cross section perpendicular thereto (par. 0004), said optical fiber comprising:
a core region (2) being capable of guiding an optical signal in a fundamental core mode with an effective refractive index, n.sub.c, at an optical signal wavelength, λ.sub.1 (par. 0004);
a cladding region surrounding the core region, the cladding region comprising an inner cladding region (3 or 3 and 9, respectively) and an outer cladding region (9 or 10 or outermost ring beyond 9, respectively), said inner cladding region comprising a background material having a refractive index, n.sub.b, (pars. 00004, 0005, 0011, 0131) and a plurality of inner cladding features (4, par. 0131) arranged in said background material, wherein a plurality of said plurality of inner cladding features (the inner hexagonal ring of 4 of inner cladding features of figs. 5 or 6 or all of 4) are of a first type of feature, said first type of feature comprising an air hole (par. 0124) surrounded by a high-index region comprising a high-index material having a refractive index, n.sub.r, (par. 0124) that is larger than the refractive index of the inner cladding background material (par. 0004 – 0006), said first type of feature supports an optical mode with an effective refractive index, n.sub.1, (par. 0005) which is lower than or equal to the effective refractive index of the fundamental core mode, n.sub.c, at said optical signal wavelength, λ.sub.1, (par. 0005)
wherein a plurality of said plurality of inner cladding features are of a second type of feature (5 or the outermost ring of 5 in figs. 5 or 6) comprising an air hole in direct contact with the background material having a refractive index, n.sub.b, (figs. 5 or 6) and
wherein said inner cladding features are arranged in a substantially hexagonal lattice (figs. 5 or 6) and the six nearest neighbors surrounding a first type of feature are of said second type of feature, and wherein no first type of feature is surrounded by less than six nearest neighbors of the second type of feature (interpreted as inner hexagonal of figs. 5 or 6 or as disclosed in pars. 0058, 0069);
wherein the cladding region further includes a set of first type of features (outermost 6 corners of item 4 as seen in figs. 5 or 6) whereof each first type of feature of the set is surrounded by less than six (only 5 surround each one) nearest neighbors of the second type of feature, and wherein each first type of feature of the set is designed to support the optical mode with the effective refractive index, n.sub.1, at an optical signal wavelength, λ.sub.1 (pars. 0005, 0011, 0042, 0070, 0072, 0073, 0090, 0091).
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 11, ‘129 teaches wherein the set of first type of feature is located in a radially outermost layer of inner cladding features centered around the core, such that, when viewed radially, all of the first type of feature surrounded by six nearest neighbors of said second type of feature are arranged radially inward of the radially outermost layer (figs. 5 or 6).
In Re claim 12, ‘129 teaches wherein the outer cladding region (9 and cladding radially outward to the outer surface of 1) comprises an outer background material having the refractive index, n.sub.ob, (same material as 3) and further comprises a set of down-doped regions (air holes 9) having a refractive index n.sub.dd (air is 1) that is lower than the refractive index of the outer cladding background material.
In Re claim 13, ‘129 teaches wherein the set of down-doped regions is proximal to the set of first type of features (fig. 5).
In Re claim 14, ‘129 teaches a ring as claimed (fig. 5).
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.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkeskjold (U.S. PG Pub. # 2013/0114129 A1).
‘129 teaches the fiber of claim 10 and an air cladding (9) as claimed, but is silent to the claimed distance. However, it is well known in the art to space cladding boundaries from one another at a desired distance so as to ensure optimal optical coupling between the claddings and the core so as ensure desired guidance along the cores and/or cladding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance of the outer cladding as claimed so as to ensure optimal optical coupling within the cladding and core to ensure desired guidance along the cores and/or cladding since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights