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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/16/2026 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.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s Arguments with respect 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections, page 8, with respect to Claims 14 and
25, and to 35 U.S.C 103 Rejections, pages 8-10, with respect to Claim rejections 1 and 16 (and their
respective dependent claims) in the Non-Final rejection dated 10/27/2025 have been considered
persuasive have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is
made further in view of U.S. Patent 5,871,559 by Bloom. The Examiner will address applicable
arguments.
Regarding Claim 1 and 16 the Applicant argues that,
The cited art for Amended Claims 1 and 16 fail to show that while the optical fiber is subjected to a deuterium flame, the exterior region of the optical fiber is free from atomic water and hydrogen.
Further that the instant claim is the fabrication of nanofibers where the light propagates outside the fiber and is susceptible to signal loss in non-water free environments a technical requirement addressed or suggested in the prior art.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
Due to the Amendments of Claims 1 and 16, a new ground of rejection exists in view of Bloom.
Bloom discloses a fabrication system for optical devices, including fiber optic couplers (Col 5 lines
1-5) and an environmental enclosure around the system, including the heat source and the
coupling point of the fibers. The environment is fed with inert gas to provide a positive pressure,
oxygen-free environment (Col 8 lines 8-20). An inert gas environment would provide essentially
a water-free/hydrogen free environment during the coupling operation and would be obvious.
The Examiner would like to remind the Applicant that a feature does necessarily not need to
have the ability to be bodily incorporated. Rather the test for obvious is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The cited prior art is relied upon to teach the claims in the instant application and not relied
upon to teach the technical requirement noted by Applicant. 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).
Hence, the Rejection for Claim 1 and 16, as well as their respective dependent claims, is
maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”).
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 a 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:
maintaining an exterior region of the optical fiber is free from atomic hydrogen and water while
subjecting the optical fiber comprising silica glass with the deuterium flame.
In a similar endeavor of making fiber optic couplers, Bloom teaches fabricating optical fiber devices
using a heat source and pulling optical fibers to produce fiber optic couplers (Col 3 lines 48-52,Col 5 lines
1-5. Fig. 2 element 32a). Further, the system uses an environment enclosure for manufacturing the fiber
optic device where the manufacturing of the optical fiber coupler occurs (Fig. 2 element 73, Col 8 lines
9-11) in a positive pressure atmosphere that is essentially oxygen free and composed of inert gas (Col 8
lines 18-19).
Bloom discloses the claimed invention except for specifically stating the exterior region of the optical
fiber is free from atomic hydrogen and water. 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 enclosure and the inert gas
of Bloom to eliminate the atomic hydrogen and water in the method of Tallent, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purposes of having a controlled environment that does not adversely react
with the optical fibers, as noted by Bloom (Col 8 lines 19-21). It is known in industrial settings that inert
gas is used to eliminate gases that are not inert which may react with the product. A 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).
Regarding Claim 3 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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, or helium to remove atmospheric hydrogen and water from an exterior region of the optical fiber, the combination of Tallent and Hoffman modified by Bloom teaches the instant claim in Claim 1 except for the specific inert gas. A PHOSITA would know what gases are inert. A 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).
Regarding Claim 5 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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 of the optical fiber 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 Bloom 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 Bloom 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, or helium to remove atmospheric hydrogen
and water from an exterior region of the optical fiber,
Bloom teaches the instant claim previously in Claim 1 and Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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 a penetration of a water into the exterior region of the optical fiber,
Bloom teaches the instant claim in Claim 1, as a positive pressure in the chamber would prevent other
gaseous species from entering the chamber and the exterior region of the optical fiber.
Regarding Claim 11 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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,
Bloom teaches the instant claim in Claim 1, as a PHOTISA would know that a gas flow is necessary to fill the environmental enclosure with an inert gas.
Regarding Claim 15- Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 Bloom 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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,689,065 by
Krause (herein “Krause”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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,
a 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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 Bloom 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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 Bloom in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Tallent further teaches wherein,
the deuterium flame, fueled by a mixture of deuterium (D) and oxygen (O), implants a
deuteroxide group in the optical fiber comprising silica glass; 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 Bloom 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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 Bloom 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
the optical resonator comprises two fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) outside of a nanofiber region, and further comprising measuring thereby to measure a propagation loss of the nanofiber device by using a transmission and reflection from the optical resonator at a wavelength ranging from 400 nanometers to 2 micrometers.
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, 19-20, 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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”).
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 a 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:
maintaining an exterior region of the optical fiber is free from atomic hydrogen and water;
In a similar endeavor of making fiber optic couplers, Bloom teaches fabricating optical fiber devices
using a heat source and pulling optical fibers to produce fiber optic couplers (Col 3 lines 48-52,Col 5 lines
1-5. Fig. 2 element 32a). Further, system uses an environment enclosure for manufacturing the fiber
optic device where the manufacturing of the optical fiber coupler occurs (Fig. 2 element 73, Col 8 lines
9-11) in positive pressure atmosphere that is essentially oxygen free and composed of inert gas (Col 8
lines 18-19).
Bloom discloses the claimed invention except for specifically stating the exterior region of the optical
fiber is free from atomic hydrogen and water. 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 inert gas of Bloom to
eliminate the atomic hydrogen and water in the method of Tallent, as one would be motivated to do so
for the purposes of having a controlled environment that does not adversely react with the optical
fibers, aa noted by Bloom (Col 8 lines 19-21). It is known in industrial settings that inert gas is used to
eliminate gases that are not inert which may react with the product. A 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).
Regarding Claim 19 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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 Bloom 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 from deuterium: oxygen, tritium: oxygen, or deuterium and tritium: 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 Bloom in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 24 , wherein the optical fiber is provided in a chamber covering the optical fiber and the deuterium or tritium flame and with an inert gas including at least one of nitrogen, argon, or helium to remove atmospheric hydrogen and water from an exterior region of the optical fiber, the combination of Tallent and Hoffman modified by Bloom teaches the instant claim in Claim 16 except for the specific inert gas. A PHOSITA would know what gases are inert. A 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).
Regarding Claim 25 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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 a penetration of a water into the exterior region of the optical fiber, Bloom
teaches the instant claim in Claim 16, as a positive pressure in the chamber would prevent
other gaseous species from entering the chamber and the exterior region of the optical fiber.
Regarding Claim 26 – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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,
Bloom teaches the instant claim in Claim 1, as a PHOTISA would know that a gas flow is necessary to fill the environmental enclosure with an inert gas.
Regarding Claim 29 - Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom 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 Bloom 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.
Claim 17 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 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 Bloom 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 Bloom 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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 Bloom 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 U.S. Patent
5,871,559 by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 Bloom 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 a trioxide group in the optical fiber comprising a silica glass.
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 Bloom 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 including an S-band ranging from 1460 to 1530nm, a C-band ranging from 1530 to 1565nm and an L band ranging from 1565 to 1635nm.
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 U.S. Patent 5,871,559
by Bloom et. al. (herein “Bloom”) 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 27 and 28 (which depends on 27) – Tallent, Hoffman, and Bloom in the rejection of
claim 16 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 16.
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]) , the combination fails to teach wherein,
the nanofiber device comprises an optical resonator
the optical resonator comprises two fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) outside of a nanofiber region, and further comprising measuring thereby to measure a propagation loss of the nanofiber device by using a transmission and reflection from the optical resonator at a wavelength ranging from 400 nanometers to 2 micrometers.
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).
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights