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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (s) (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Figures, when more than one (1) figure, are to be labeled “FIG. X” where X is an Arabic numeral. For example, “Figure 1” should read “FIG. 1”. FIG. 1 – FIG. 6 need amending.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 1 - “or quantum repeater”/” or a quantum repeater”; “OH” should be written as hydroxyl the first time cited
Regarding Claim 4 - “wherein deuterium flame”/ “wherein a deuterium flame”.
Regarding Claim 5 - “from a first portion to”/ “from a first portion of the optical fiber to”.
Regarding Claim 8 - “wherein the flame”/ “wherein the deuterium flame”; “implants OD group”/”implants OD group in the optical fiber comprising silica glass”; “OD should be written as deuterated hydroxyl the first time cited.
Regarding Claim 10 and 25- “prevent penetration”/ “prevent a penetration”.
Regarding Claims 15 and 29 – “from 0.5dB/cm and less”/”from 0.5dB/cm, and less”
Regarding Claim 16 - “a deuterium or tritium”/ “a deuterium or a tritium”.
Regarding Claim 22 - “implants OD group or OT group”/”implants OD group or OT in the optical fiber comprising silica glass”; “OT” should be written as tritiated hydroxyl the first time cited.
Regarding Claim 23 – bands S, C and L should be written as below for first time cited:
Short wavelength, 1460-1530 nm (S-band)
Conventional wavelength, 1530-1565 nm (C-band)
Long wavelength, 1565-1625 nm (L-band )
Regarding Claim 24 - “the flame”/ “the deuterium or tritium flame”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner understands the following:
Regarding Claims 3, 9 and 24 - the phrase “inert gas including at least one of nitrogen, helium, or a combination of multiple gas species to mean that after at least one gas of nitrogen or helium, a combination any multiple inert gas species, even if those gas species are not nitrogen or helium, is claimed.
Regarding Claims 15 and 29 – it is unclear the meaning of “the method of claim 1 wherein the nanofiber device is characterized by a performance in an optical communication application by reducing loss due to the OH-bond-related absorption added during a fabrication process from 0.5dB/cm, and less as compared to a nanofiber device made with a hydrogen flame”. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art and in regard to Claim 1, the Examiner understands this to mean that:
the OH-bond related absorption loss of 0.5dB/cm due to a hydrogen flame process is reduced by any amount.
the amount of OH-bond related absorption loss of the hydrogen flame process is more than the amount of OH-bond related absorption loss of the non-hydrogen flame process.
Regarding Claim 20 – the molar ratio of 2:1 is a molar ratio of deuterium : oxygen, or tritium : oxygen, or (deuterium + tritium) : oxygen.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
Regarding an aspect of Claim 1 – “and using the nanofiber device in a quantum computing or quantum repeater application” is a mere claiming of a use of a particular structure and would not be entitled to weight in the method.
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.
Claim 14 and 25 is/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.
Regarding Claim 14 - lacks a positively recited method step. It’s unclear if the claim intends to recite a capability or an actual testing step. The Examiner suggests, “ The method of claim 13, further comprising measuring a propagation loss of the nanofiber device by using a transmission and reflection for two fiber Braff gratings present in the optical resonator at a wavelength ranging from 400 nanometers to 2 micrometers.
Regarding Claim 25 – it is unclear what constitutes a “contaminant molecule”. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands this to mean any molecule or material not cited in the instant claims.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and/or dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20040033023A by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Tallent teaches,
A method for fabricating a nanofiber device, the method comprising:
providing an optical fiber; Fig. 4, [0009], ..”the method further includes the steps of
maintaining a first optic fiber and a second fiber optic…”
providing a deuterium flame as a heat source; [0008]; “Preferably, the deuterium process
includes treating the segment in the presence of a flame produced by combustion of deuterium
gas.”
subjecting the optical fiber comprising silica glass with the deuterium flame; [0010],
“Another preferred embodiment of the invention provides an optic device that includes at least
one segment treated by a deuterium process. Preferably, the deuterium process includes
heating the at least one segment in the presence of a flame produced by combustion of a
mixture including deuterium gas”.
and causing formation of a nanofiber device; [0011], “In another embodiment, the invention
provides an optic device including at least two optic fibers having respective longitudinal
segments, in which the longitudinal segments are fused together by a deuterium process.” This
is a description of a fiber coupler [0026].
a mixture of deuterium gas with oxygen gas; [0008], “Preferably, a chemical can be
added to the deuterium gas. Preferably, oxygen can be added to the deuterium gas.”
controlling in a molar ratio (deuterium to oxygen); [0060], “In an initial "prefuse" step, the
D.sub.2/0.sub.2 mixture is set to 70 sccm/250 sccm (22% D.sub.2 by volume). After the torch
has been placed under the fibers, the flow are settings are changed to 124 sccm D.sub.2/250
sccm O.sub.2 (33% D.sub.2 by volume, with higher total flow rate)”, illustrates control of molar
ratio between the deuterium and oxygen.
while reducing an OH-bond-related transmission loss in the silica glass; Fig. 9/10, [0104]. Fig. 9 (hydrogen flame process which adds OH ) is an illustration of a transmission loss peak at 1380nm when OH is present in the fiber and Fig. 10 (deuterium flame process that does not add OH) is an illustration of a transmission loss peak at 1380 when OH is absent due to the deuterium flame process. Hence, the deuterium flame has reduced OH bond related transmission loss.
and using the nanofiber device in a quantum computing or quantum repeater application; this
is a use claim of a structure in a method claim, See Claim Interpretation.
While Tallent teaches substituting deuterium for hydrogen in
flame process([0054]),
Tallent fails to teach the process is controlled by
an electronic mass flow controller.
In a similar endeavor of flame heating of a glass fiber to create a nanofiber, Hoffman teaches that it is
known in the art to use an electronic mass flow controller (Omega FMA 5400/5500, online at
https://sea.omega.com/tw/pptst/FMA5400A_5500A.html, 2017) (Page 4 lines -3).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the controller
taught by Hoffman in the process of Tallent because person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Tallent further fails to teach:
and while an exterior region of the optical fiber is free from atomic hydrogen and water;
In a similar endeavor of using deuterium to process and optical fiber, Inoue teaches a process of treating
optical fiber by putting optical fiber in a treatment container, filling the container with treatment gas
([0014]) that is flowing gas ([0047] lines 3-4) of a 1% deuterium/99% nitrogen mix, where the container
has an airtight door ([0015]), where the process is modeled after prior art to address issues of loss
peaks due to hydrogen and OH ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Inoue in the method
of Tallent, one being motivated to do so by gaining the capability of time determination of the end of
deuterium treatment to reduce the deuterium treatment time and reduce fiber sampling waste, as
noted by Inoue ([0010] lines 5-7.)
Regarding Claim 3 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3 , wherein the optical fiber maintained in a chamber and with an inert gas including at least one of nitrogen, argon, helium, or a combination of multiple gas species to remove atmospheric hydrogen and water from an exterior region of the optical fiber, the combination of Tallent and Hoffman modified by Inoue teaches the instant claim, as noted by Inoue ([0014], [0047] lines 3-4) ,([0015], ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 5 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.Tallent further teaches wherein,
the deuterium flame is scanned spatially from a first portion to a second portion of the optical
fiber; [0045], “While heating element 208 moves with respect to the fiber…”
Regarding Claim 6 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6 , Tallent teaches range of possible D2/O2 mixtures ([0062]) as well as oxygen supplied to control the completeness of combustion ([0057]), which suggests a potential stoichiometric molar ratio of deuterium to oxygen, but does not specifically teach wherein,
the molar ratio is 2: 1 (i.e. deuterium : oxygen).
Hoffman teaches the use of an oxyhydrogen flame in a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen to ensure water vapor is the only byproduct (Page 067124-4, lines 1-2). A stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen where water vapor is the only product is below:
2H2 + 1O2 = 2 H2O, where the stoichiometric ratio, which is a molar ratio of hydrogen to oxygen, is 2:1
Chemically, deuterium is of the same molar structure as hydrogen (D2 = deuterium and H2 = hydrogen)
as a gas. Replacing H2 with D2 : 2D2 + 1O2 = 2 D2O, i.e. the same molar ratio, 2: 1, for deuterium to
oxygen. While Hoffman does not specifically teach a molar ratio of 2:1 for deuterium: oxygen, it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention was made to try deuterium in the process of Hoffman for the process of Tallent.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Tallent teaches the exposed fiber is cleaned and rinsed ([0040]) but fails to teach wherein,
the optical fiber is provided in a chamber enclosing the optical fiber and the flame
with an inert gas including at least one of nitrogen, helium, or a combination of multiple gas
species to remove atmospheric hydrogen and water from an exterior region of the optical fiber,
Hoffman teaches the entire pulling apparatus, including the fiber and the flame, is inside a cleanroom (a large container) initially specified as ISO Class 100, due to the desire to have a clean environment. Further,
Hoffman cites an extensive cleaning procedure of the fiber before engaging the pulling/flame process
(Page 067124-4 line 27 ,). Further, as one skilled in the art would know,
cleanrooms are supplied with filtered air; air contains 79% nitrogen. It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the
cleanroom of Hoffman in the process of Tallent, one being motivated to do so to reduce/eliminate
particulate accumulation on the optical fiber before the pull begins as the particulate will compromise
the quality of the optical nanofiber; it will degrade the transmission, excite higher order modes, change
the modal evolution, and scatter light as noted by Hoffman (Page 067124-3, Appendix B. lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 10 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 9 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10 , wherein the chamber is sealed and maintained in a positive pressure with an inert gas to prevent penetration of a water into the exterior region of the optical fiber,
Tallent and Hoffman modified by Inoue teaches the instant claim as noted by Inoue ([0014],
[0047] lines 3-4) ,([0015], ([0007]). To note, as Inoue cites an “airtight” seal of the container door
([0015], since air molecules are smaller than water molecules, water penetration is prevented
from entering the chamber with prevents water on the exterior region of the optical fiber.
Regarding Claim 11 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 9 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11 , wherein the inert gas is characterized by a gas flow of the inert gas,
Tallent and Hoffman modified by Inoue teaches the instant claim ([0015]).
Regarding Claim 15- Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Tallent further teaches wherein,
the nanofiber device is characterized by a performance in an optical communication
application; this is a use claim of a structure in a method claim, See Claim Interpretation.
by reducing loss due to the OH-bond-related absorption added during a fabrication process from 0.5dB/cm and less as compared to a nanofiber device made with a hydrogen flame; Fig. 9/10, [0102],[0104]. Fig. 9 (hydrogen flame process which adds OH-bond-related absorption loss )illustrates “ the presence of a large (about 0.4dB) attenuation peak in the 1380-1420nm range…”, i.e. the “dip” in the upper curve of the graph. Fig. 10 (deuterium flame process that does not add OH-bond-related absorption loss) does not illustrate the absorption loss in the 1380-1420nm range (no “dip” in the upper curve of the graph). As the difference is 0.4dB, and the pull length of the hydrogen flame-based process is 7.75mm ([0095]), then the loss due to the hydrogen flame-based process, which is not present in the deuterium flame-based process, is: 0.4dB / (7.75mm * (1cm/10mm)) = 0.5dB/cm. Therefore, the deuterium flame-based process reduced the OH-bond-related absorption loss 0.5dB/cm. Further, the deuterium flam-based process loss at 1380-1420nm in Fig. 10 is -2.5dB. The hydrogen flame-based process loss at 1380-1420nm in Fig. 9 is -3+dB. Therefore, the deuterium flame-based process loss is less than the hydrogen flame-based process loss.
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20040033023A by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”) and in further view of NPL “Contributed Review:
Optical Micro-and Nanofiber Pulling Rig” by Ward et. al. (herein “Ward”).
Regarding Claim 2 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
While Tallent recites heating the fiber(s) with a flame and temperature control [0057], Tallent fails to
teach wherein,
the deuterium flame causes the optical fiber to increase in temperature to 1200 degrees Celsius
or higher.
In a similar endeavor flame heating of a glass fiber to create a nanofiber, Ward teaches a nanofiber
pulling rig set-up (Fig. 2) and heating a glass fiber between 1200°C and 1500°C (D. Gas System line 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use the temperature of Hoffman in the method Tallent, one being motivated
by heating the glass fiber above its annealing temperature to allow for deformation but not heated
above its softening temperature to prevent glass sagging, as noted by Ward (D. Gas Systems, lines 34-
37).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20040033023A
by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”).
and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,689,065 by Krause (herein
“Krause”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
While the combination cites control of flame size (Tallent [0057]), the combination fails to teach wherein,
deuterium flame is characterized by a size of 1 millimeter or less.
In a similar endeavor of creating fiber couplers (Col 2 lines 18-20) using a flame and deuterium as the
combustion species, Krause teaches a flame size of 0.5 to 10mm, preferably 1mm to 5mm ( Col 3 lines
15-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Krause’s flame size range that
corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. One would have been motivated to do so aspects
such as the small size of the flame, centered fiber placement, and the closeness of the fiber to the
nozzle are considered to be beneficial in the interest of minimization of turbulence and uniformity of
heat gradient, as noted by Krause ( Col 3 lines 25-28).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20040033023A
by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission Optical
Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20060208918A1 by
Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”) and in further view of NPL “Real-Time Control of Micro/Nanofiber Waist
Diameter with Ultra high Accuracy and Precision”, by Xu et. al. (herein “Xu”).
Regarding Claim 7 - Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Tallent teach wherein,
subjecting the optical fiber to a force to change a diameter of the optical fiber from a first diameter to a second diameter; [0044], “ “Because of this arrangement, first stage 204 and second stage 206 are able to retain one or more fibers between them and their motion can be used to affect the retained fibers. In one example, where pre-tapering of one or more of the fibers is desired, the diameter of fiber 214 may be modified by mounting fiber 214 onto moveable stages 204 and 206 and heating a portion of fiber 214 with heating element 208. A movable gas torch 208 that provides a flame is preferably used as heating element 208”
the second diameter ranging from 2 micron to 400 nanometers, to form the nanofiber device.
In a similar endeavor flame heating of a glass fiber to create a nanofiber, Xu teaches a controlled nanofiber pulling process using the standard fiber pulling system using a hydrogen flame to taper the fiber (Page 10436) to model nanofiber waist diameters with high precision and low variation in the range of 800nm to 1300nm (Page 10438, 10439 lines 14-15) starting with an SMF 28e fiber (Page 10436 line 15 ) (125um cladding diameter, 9.2um core diameter; https://www.corning.com/optical-communications/worldwide/en/home/products/fiber/optical-fiber-products/smf-28e-.html, 2021) as well as a potential lower limit of the nanofiber waist under 400um. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the pulling method of Xu to obtain nanofibers with a waist of at least 400um, preferably in the 800nm-1300nm range, in the method of the combination, with one being motivated to do so to ensure straight fibers and to gain resistance to diameter sensitive applications, as noted by Xu (Page 10438 lines 25-26, Page 10440 lines 7-8).
Claim 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20040033023A
by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission Optical
Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20060208918A1 by
Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”) and in further view of NPL “Interactions of Hydrogen and
Deuterium with Silica Optical Fibers” by Stone (herein “Stone”).
Regarding Claim 8 –– Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Tallent further teaches wherein,
the flame, fueled by a mixture of deuterium (D) and oxygen (O), implants OD group; Fig. 9/10,
[0102], [0104], “Fig. 9 shows a typical insertion loss of the standard process (hydrogen flame)
and Fig. 10 shows insertion loss of the deuterium process (deuterium flame), where the
deuterium flame process incurs less insertion loss at 1380nm than the hydrogen flame process.
One skilled in the art would know that the deuterium flame process implants OD and as a
result, provides less insertion loss than the hydrogen flame process
Regarding Claim 12 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
While Tallent uses a deuterium flame process for making the nanofiber coupler device and characterizes the nanofiber coupler device with a result illustrating a reduced absorption peak at 1380nm due to the use of deuterium (OD) vs. hydrogen (OH) for a flame (Fig. 10), Tallent fails to teach wherein,the nanofiber device is characterized by an absorption peak of OD vibration that has a longer wavelength than telecommunication bands S, C, and L bands.
Stone teaches an OH- to-OD exchange into a standard diameter glass fiber heated in deuterium at 800°C (Page 724, Col 1), where one of the drivers for the fundamental exchange to take place is temperature (Page 723 Col 2 lines 12-15), showing the release of OH and the gain of OD throughout the fiber. Further, Stone cites the 1st overtone (absorption peak) of the OD fiber is at ~ 1.8um wavelength, which is longer than telecommunication bands S, C and L. (Fig. 23).
Stone teaches a similar process for gaining OD in the fiber and a similar fiber structure that contains OD. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and have a fiber that is characterized by an absorption peak of OD vibration that has a longer wavelength than telecommunication bands S, C, and L bands, as one would be motivated to do so gain a larger optical transmission window, as noted by Stone (Page 723 lines 1-3).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20040033023A by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”) and in further view of NPL “Ultra-Low-Loss
Nanofiber Fabry-Perot Cavities Optimized for Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics”, by Ruddell et. al.
(herein “Ruddell”).
Regarding Claim 13 and 14 (which depends on 13) – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of
claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
While the combination teaches a method for fabrication optical couplers, the combination also teaches that the method can be used for single fiber nanofibers for fabrication of other optical devices (Tallent Fig. 2, [0026]), combination fails to teach wherein,
the nanofiber device comprises an optical resonator
In the endeavor of using a single fiber on a pulling rig to create resonator, Ruddell teaches two fiber Bragg Gratings (FBGs) are written on a fiber and then a nanofiber is fabricated between them (Page 4875 Col 2, P3, lines 4-6). The nanofiber was made using the heat-pull method where the flame diameter is 1mm (Page 4876, Col 1, P3 lines 1-4; Fig. 2). A nanofiber resonance cavity was created with a nanofiber radius of 207nm (414nm diameter) having an internal round-trip ( i.e. transmission from 1st FBG and then reflected off the 2nd FBG back to the 1st FBG) loss of only 0.31% measured at a wavelength of 852.3nm (Page 4876, Col 1 P1, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the processing steps of making a resonator of Ruddell to the nanofiber fabrication method of the combination, motivated to so do to optimize the performance of the resonator to create an ultra-low loss cavity to enable the realization of high-efficiency fiber-integrated deterministic single-photon sources, high-fidelity quantum gates, and quantum memories in a fiber-based quantum network, as noted by Ruddell (Page 4878, P2 lines 9-12).
Claims 16, 1920, 24-26, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20040033023A by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”).
Regarding Claim 16 – Tallent teaches,
A method for fabricating a nanofiber device, the method comprising:
providing an optical fiber; Fig. 4, [0009], ..”the method further includes the steps of
maintaining a first optic fiber and a second fiber optic…”
providing a deuterium or tritium flame as a heat source; [0008]; “Preferably, the deuterium
process includes treating the segment in the presence of a flame produced by combustion of
deuterium gas.”
subjecting the optical fiber comprising silica glass with the deuterium or tritium flame; [0010],
“Another preferred embodiment of the invention provides an optic device that includes at least
one segment treated by a deuterium process. Preferably, the deuterium process includes
heating the at least one segment in the presence of a flame produced by combustion of a
mixture including deuterium gas”.
and causing formation of a nanofiber device; [0011], “In another embodiment, the invention
provides an optic device including at least two optic fibers having respective longitudinal
segments, in which the longitudinal segments are fused together by a deuterium process.” This
is a description of a fiber coupler [0026].
a mixture of deuterium or tritium gas with oxygen gas; [0008], “Preferably, a
chemical can be
added to the deuterium gas. Preferably, oxygen can be added to the deuterium gas.”
controlling in a molar ratio (deuterium or tritium to oxygen); [0060], “In an initial "prefuse"
step, the D.sub.2/0.sub.2 mixture is set to 70 sccm/250 sccm (22% D.sub.2 by volume). After
the torch has been placed under the fibers, the flow are settings are changed to 124 sccm
D.sub.2/250 sccm O.sub.2 (33% D.sub.2 by volume, with higher total flow rate)”, illustrates
some level of molar ratio between the deuterium and oxygen.
while reducing an OH-bond-related transmission loss in the silica glass; Fig. 9/10, [0104]. Fig. 9 (hydrogen flame process which adds OH ) is an illustration of a transmission loss peak at 1380nm when OH is present in the fiber and Fig. 10 (deuterium flame process that does not add OH) is an illustration of a transmission loss peak at 1380 when OH is absent due to the deuterium flame process. Hence, the deuterium flame has reduced OH bond related transmission loss.
While Tallent teaches substituting deuterium for hydrogen in a flame process([0054]),
Tallent fails to teach, the process is controlled by
an electronic mass flow controller.
In a similar endeavor of flame heating of a glass fiber to create a nanofiber, Hoffman teaches that it is known in the art to use electronic mass flow controllers (Omega
FMA 5400/5500, online athttps://sea.omega.com/tw/pptst/FMA5400A_5500A.html, 2017) (Page 4 lines -3 It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the controller
taught by Hoffman in the process of Tallent because person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Tallent further fails to teach:
and while an exterior region of the optical fiber is free from atomic hydrogen and water;
In a similar endeavor of using deuterium to process and optical fiber, Inoue teaches a process of treating
optical fiber by putting optical fiber in a treatment container, filling the container with treatment gas
([0014]) that is flowing gas ([0047] lines 3-4) of a 1% deuterium/99% nitrogen mix, where the container
has an airtight door ([0015]), where the process is modeled after prior art to address issues of loss
peaks due to hydrogen and OH ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Inoue in the method
of Tallent, one being motivated to do so by gaining the capability of time determination of the end of
deuterium treatment to reduce the deuterium treatment time and reduce fiber sampling waste, as
noted by Inoue ([0010] lines 5-7.)
Regarding Claim 19 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Tallent further teaches wherein,
the deuterium flame is scanned spatially from a first portion to a second portion of the optical
fiber; [0045], “While heating element 208 moves with respect to the fiber…”
Regarding Claim 20 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Tallent teaches range of possible D2/O2 mixtures ([0062]) as well as oxygen supplied to control the completeness of combustion ([0057]), which suggests a potential stoichiometric molar ratio of deuterium to oxygen, but does not specifically teach wherein,
the molar ratio is 2: 1 (i.e. deuterium : oxygen).
Hoffman teaches the use of an oxyhydrogen flame in a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen to ensure water vapor is the only byproduct (Page 067124-4, lines 1-2). A stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen where water vapor is the only product is below:
2H2 + 1O2 = 2 H2O, where the stoichiometric ratio, which is a molar ratio of hydrogen to oxygen, is 2:1
Chemically, deuterium is of the same molar structure as hydrogen (D2 = deuterium and H2 = hydrogen)
as a gas. Replacing H2 with D2 : 2D2 + 1O2 = 2 D2O, i.e. the same molar ratio, 2: 1, for deuterium to
oxygen. While Hoffman does not specifically teach a molar ratio of 2:1 for deuterium: oxygen, it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention was made to try deuterium in the process of Hoffman for the process of Tallent.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 24 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 24 , wherein the optical fiber maintained in a chamber and with an inert gas including at least one of nitrogen, argon, helium, or a combination of multiple gas species to remove atmospheric hydrogen and water from an exterior region of the optical fiber, the combination of Tallent and Hoffman modified by Inoue teaches the instant claim as noted by Inoue ([0014], [0047] lines 3-4) ,([0015], ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 25 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 25 , wherein the chamber is sealed or open and maintained in a positive pressure with an inert gas to prevent penetration of a water or a contaminant molecule into the exterior region of the optical fiber, Tallent and Hoffman modified by Inoue teaches the instant claim, as noted by Inoue ([0014],
[0047] lines 3-4) ,([0015], ([0007]); To note, as Inoue cites an “airtight” seal of the container door
([0015], since air molecules are smaller than water molecules, water penetration is prevented from
entering the chamber with prevents water on the exterior region of the optical fiber.
Regarding Claim 26 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 26 , wherein the inert gas is flowed over and exterior region of the optical fiber,
Tallent and Hoffman modified by Inoue teaches the instant claim as noted by Inoue ([0014], [0047] lines 3-4).
Regarding Claim 29 - Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Tallent further teaches wherein,
the nanofiber device is characterized by a reduced transmission loss from a first level to a
second level; Fig. 9/10
and,
a performance in an optical communication application; this is a use claim of a structure in a
method claim, See Claim Interpretation.
by reducing loss due to the OH-bond-related absorption added during a fabrication process from 0.5dB/cm and less as compared to a nanofiber device made with a hydrogen flame; Fig. 9/10, [0102],[0104]. Fig. 9 (hydrogen flame process which adds OH-bond-related absorption loss )illustrates “ the presence of a large (about 0.4dB) attenuation peak in the 1380-1420nm range…”, i.e. the “dip” in the upper curve of the graph. Fig. 10 (deuterium flame process that does not add OH-bond-related absorption loss) does not illustrate the absorption loss in the 1380-1420nm range (no “dip” in the upper curve of the graph). As the difference is 0.4dB, and the pull length of the hydrogen flame-based process is 7.75mm ([0095]), then the loss due to the hydrogen flame-based process, which is not present in the deuterium flame-based process, is: 0.4dB / (7.75mm * (1cm/10mm)) = 0.5dB/cm. Therefore, the deuterium flame-based process reduced the OH-bond-related absorption loss 0.5dB/cm. Further, the deuterium flam-based process loss at 1380-1420nm in Fig. 10 is -2.5dB. The hydrogen flame-based process loss at 1380-1420nm in Fig. 9 is -3+dB. Therefore, the deuterium flame-based process loss is less than the hydrogen flame-based process loss.
Regarding Claim 30- Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
wherein the optical fiber provided in a nanofiber device is characterized as an optical resonator structure; this is a use claim of a structure in a method claim, See Claim Interpretation.
Claim17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20040033023A by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”) and in further view of NPL “Contributed Review:
Optical Micro-and Nanofiber Pulling Rig” by Ward et. al. (herein “Ward”).
Regarding Claim 17 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
While Tallent recites heating the fiber(s) with a flame and temperature control [0057], Tallent fails to
teach wherein,
the deuterium or tritium flame causes the optical fiber to increase in temperature to 1200
degrees Celsius or higher.
In a similar endeavor flame heating of a glass fiber to create a nanofiber, Ward teaches a nanofiber
pulling rig set-up (Fig. 2) and heating a glass fiber between 1200°C and 1500°C (D. Gas System line 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use the temperature of Hoffman in the method Tallent, one being motivated
by heating the glass fiber above its annealing temperature to allow for deformation but not heated
above its softening temperature to prevent glass sagging, as noted by Ward (D. Gas Systems, lines 34-
37).
).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20040033023A
by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL
“Ultrahigh Transmission Optical Nanofibers”
by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,689,065 by Krause (herein
“Krause”).
Regarding Claim 18 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
While the combination cites control of flame size (Tallent [0057]) the combination fails to teach wherein,
deuterium or tritium flame is characterized by a size of 1 millimeter or less.
In a similar endeavor of creating fiber couplers (Col 2 lines 18-20) using a flame and deuterium as the
combustion species, Krause teaches a flame size of 0.5 to 10mm, preferably 1mm to 5mm ( Col 3 lines
15-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Krause’s flame size range that
corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. One would have been motivated to do so aspects
such as the small size of the flame, centered fiber placement, and the closeness of the fiber to the
nozzle are considered to be beneficial in the interest of minimization of turbulence and uniformity of
heat gradient, as noted by Krause ( Col 3 lines 25-28).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20040033023A
by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission Optical
Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20060208918A1 by
Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”) and in further view of NPL “Real-Time Control of Micro/Nanofiber Waist
Diameter with Ultra high Accuracy and Precision”, by Xu et. al. (herein “Xu”).
Regarding Claim 21 - Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
subjecting the optical fiber to a force to change a diameter of the optical fiber from a first diameter to a second diameter, the second diameter ranging from 2 micron to 400 nanometers, to form the nanofiber device.
In a similar endeavor flame heating of a glass fiber to create a nanofiber, Xu teaches a controlled nanofiber pulling process using the standard fiber pulling system using a hydrogen flame to taper the fiber (Page 10436) to model nanofiber waist diameters with high precision and low variation in the range of 800nm to 1300nm (Page 10438, 10439 lines 14-15) starting with an SMF 28e fiber (Page 10436 line 15 ) (125um cladding diameter, 9.2um core diameter; https://www.corning.com/optical-communications/worldwide/en/home/products/fiber/optical-fiber-products/smf-28e-.html, 2021) as well as a potential lower limit of the nanofiber waist under 400um. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the pulling method of Xu to obtain nanofibers with a waist of at least 400um, preferably in the 800nm-1300nm range, in the method of the combination, with one being motivated to do so to ensure straight fibers and to gain resistance to diameter sensitive applications, as noted by Xu (Page 10438 lines 25-26, Page 10440 lines 7-8).
Claim 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20040033023A by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL ”“Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) ”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (herein “Inoue”) and in further view of NPL “Interactions of Hydrogen
and Deuterium with Silica Optical Fibers” by Stone (herein “Stone”).
Regarding Claim 22 –– Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
While Tallent teaches use of deuterium, with oxygen, as combustion gas as replacement for hydrogen to reduce the attenuation peak of a glass fiber at 1380nm ([0104], [0105]), and as well as it is known in the art the deuterium (OD) suppresses attenuation caused by OH, Tallent does not specifically teach wherein,
the flame, fueled by a mixture of deuterium (D) and oxygen (O), or tritium (T) and oxygen, implants OD group or OT group.
In a similar endeavor of implanting OD in a glass fiber at temperature, Stone teaches an OH- to-OD exchange into a standard diameter glass fiber at 800°C (Page 724, Col 1), where one of the drivers for the exchange to take place is temperature (Page 723 Col 2 lines 12-15), with result showing the release of OH and the gain of OD throughout the fiber. Further, Stone cites the fundamental chemistry of the difference between OH containing fibers and OD containing fibers, which is:
The first overtone OH attenuation peak between 1.3um and 1.6um wavelengths is eliminated.
The 1st overtone of the OD fiber is at ~ 1.8um wavelength.
The combination/2nd overtones of OH and OD are extremely small their respective wavelengths
(Fig. 23)
While Stone does not teach the use of a flame at temperatures of 1200°C, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the temperature driven process of OH-to-OD exchange to implant OD in the deuterium flame process to make couplers of Tallent, one being motived to do so to decrease the OH and increase the OD in the fiber to gain the ability to exploit the entire transmission window between 1.3um and 1.6um wavelengths, as noted by Stone (Page 723 lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 23 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Inoue in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
While Tallent uses a deuterium flame process for making the nanofiber coupler device and characterizes the nanofiber coupler device with a result illustrating a reduced absorption peak at 1380nm due to the use of deuterium (OD) vs. hydrogen (OH) for a flame (Fig. 10), Tallent fails to teach wherein, the nanofiber device is characterized by an absorption peak of OD and/or OT vibration that has a longer wavelength than telecommunication bands S, C, and L bands.
Stone teaches an OH- to-OD exchange into a standard diameter glass fiber heated in deuterium at 800°C (Page 724, Col 1), where one of the drivers for the fundamental exchange to take place is temperature (Page 723 Col 2 lines 12-15), showing the release of OH and the gain of OD throughout the fiber. Further, Stone cites the 1st overtone (absorption peak) of the OD fiber is at ~ 1.8um wavelength, which is longer than telecommunication bands S, C and L. (Fig. 23).
Stone teaches a similar process for gaining OD in the fiber and a similar fiber structure that contains OD. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and have a fiber that is characterized by an absorption peak of OD vibration that has a longer wavelength than telecommunication bands S, C, and L bands, as one would be motivated to do so gain a larger optical transmission window, as noted by Stone (Page 723 lines 1-3).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20040033023A by Tallent et. al. (herein “Tallent”) and in further view of NPL “Ultrahigh Transmission
Optical Nanofibers” by Hoffman et. al. (herein “Hoffman”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060208918A1 by Inoue et. al. (