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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 8, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arao et al. (USPGPUB No. 2022/0413221, from hereinafter “Arao”).
Regarding claim 1, Arao teaches an optical fiber connection structure (fan-in, fan-out, “FIFO” device), comprising a first optical fiber and a second optical fiber each including plural cores (MCF 300 including cores 301) 3and a cladding (resin 220) surrounding outer peripheries of the plural cores, the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber being connected to each other at end faces of the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber, arrangements of the plural cores of the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber matching each other at least partly, wherein the plural cores include a first core and a second core that is farther from a central axis of the cladding than the first core, and the second core has a mode field diameter (MFD) larger than a mode field diameter of the first core in at least a connection region near the end faces (for example, 150a/b) (see Figures 1-2, paragraphs 6, 24-29, 38-46).
Regarding claim 2, Arao teaches wherein in the connection region, a range where an additive included in the second core to increase a refractive index of the second core is present in a radial direction of the second core is wider than a range where an additive included in the first core to increase a refractive index of the first core is present in a radial direction of the first core (see abstract, paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 6, Arao teaches wherein the first optical fiber or second optical fiber isa multicore fiber (see paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 7, Arao teaches wherein the first optical fiber or the second optical fiber is a bundle-type optical fiber (bundle of single core fiber (SCF)) when it is taught that a fan-in/fan-out (FIFO) device is known as an example of an optical connection device that optically connects a plurality of cores included in a multi-core fiber (hereinafter, referred to as an “MCF”) and a plurality of single-core fibers (hereinafter, referred to as “SCFs”) in a one-to-one correspondence state. Usually, when the plurality of SCFs are bundled, it is difficult to directly connect the plurality of cores of the MCF and the plurality of SCFs due to a difference in core pitch. Thus, when the plurality of SCFs in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of cores of the MCF are optically connected, pitch conversion is performed by using the FIFO device. It should be noted that Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2 disclose a fusion and elongation type FIFO device as the above-described FIFO device (see paragraphs 3 and 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The best prior art of record fails to specifically teach the limitations adhering to the formulas as set forth in dependent claims 3-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Patent No. 5,748,820 to Le Marer et al. and USPGPUB 2016/0291278 to Yamamoto et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M CAPUTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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.
/LISA M CAPUTO/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights