DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/22/2026 with regard to claim 1 as amended have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the ‘075 publication fails to disclose a limitation of “a region in which the first linear portion is not present in an interior of the first tubular portion on a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction is a void”, which corresponds to “a configuration in which spaces between each first linear portion are completely vacant”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While “a configuration in which spaces between each first linear portion are completely vacant” may be disclosed in the specification, claimed limitation must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and it is improper to import claim limitations form the specification. Here, the claim requires “a region in which the first linear portion is not present in an interior” to be a void, but does not specify that “a region” encompasses all area in the interior not occupied by the linear portions or that only one continuous void is present. The ‘075 publication discloses multiple interstitial spaces between the linear portions (2a-2c) and the tubular portion (7) or between the linear portions (2a-2c) and quartz capillaries (5), and each of the spaces can be considered a region or a void as claimed. There is no specific claim language the precludes or prohibits the presence of the additional quartz capillaries of the ‘075 publication. In summary, the claim only requires that one or more voids exist within the interior, not that the interior consists of only the linear portions, a single void region, and nothing else.
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: within the amended portion, “the first linear portion is not present” should be “the plurality of linear portions are not present”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2013020075 A patent publication (the ‘075 publication, cited in IDS/ISR).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘075 publication discloses a multicore fiber comprising: a plurality of first linear portions (rods 2a-2c) including a first core portion (cores 21), and a first cladding portion (clad/quartz tube 22) having a refractive index lower than a maximum refractive index of the first core portion (relative refractive index differences of the core 31 with respect to the cladding are, for example, 0.25 to 0.4% and 0.8 to 1.2%), the first cladding portion surrounding an outer periphery of the first core portion (as illustrated in Fig. 1); and a first tubular portion (quartz jacket tube 7), wherein the first linear portions are respectively joined to an inner wall of the first tubular portion (the rods outer periphery are tangential to linear inner walls of the quartz jacket tube 7 as illustrated in Fig. 1), and two of the first linear portions are not in contact with each other in at least a portion in a longitudinal direction on a first virtual line connecting centers of two of the first core portions included in the two of the first linear portions, on a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (separated by quartz capillaries 5a to 5f), a region in which the first linear portion is not present in an interior of the first tubular portion on a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction is a void (empty spaces inside the quartz jacket tube 7 that are not occupied by the rods 2, 3 or the capillaries 5).
Regarding claim 3, the ’075 publication further discloses two of the first linear portions are not in contact with each other in at least a portion in the longitudinal direction in a region sandwiched between two second virtual lines connecting ends of two center cores of the two of the first core portions included in the two of the first linear portions on a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (cross-section of the fiber is shown in Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 4, the ’075 publication further discloses a refractive index profile formed by the first core portion and the first cladding portion is either one of a step-index type, a staircase type, a W-shape type, and a trench type (in view of the non-zero relative refractive index).
Regarding claim 9, the ‘075 publication further discloses a distance between two of the first linear portions is 1.5 μm or larger (diameter of the core 21 is, for example, 8 to 16 μm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013020075 A patent publication as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2012/0230640 A1 by Hayashi.
Regarding claims 5-8, the ‘075 publication discloses the multicore fiber according to claim 1 but does not further specify a wavelength of light propagating therein, a cutoff wavelength, a mode field diameter, or crosstalk. a cable cutoff wavelength λcc of 1530 nm or less, a mode field diameter of 9.5 to 10.5 µm at a wavelength of 1550 nm, (see at least ¶[0016]) and in a single mode within the wavelength range from 1530 nm to 1625 nm and can achieve characteristics of crosstalk after transmission over 100 km of -30 dB or less at a probability of 99.99% or higher. These parameters are industry testing standards or desired settings that allow large capacity of the fiber without optical signals interference, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine testing and/or experimentation to set or determine the claimed variables in the specified range for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013020075 A patent publication as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9,052,433 B2 to Dianov et al.
Regarding claim 10, the ‘075 publication discloses the multicore fiber but not a second linear portion as claimed. Dianov also teaches a multicore optical fiber comprising a first linear portion having a core (1k) and a cladding (2k), a tubular portion (outer cladding 4), a second linear portion including: a second core portion (11) arranged on a center side with respect to the first linear portion; and a second cladding portion (21) having a refractive index lower than a maximum refractive index of the second core portion (Fig. 1b), the second cladding portion surrounding an outer periphery of the second core portion (as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2), and barrier elements (31…3k, which are equivalent to capillaries 5 in the ‘075 publication for maintaining a gap between the linear portions). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multicore fiber in the ‘075 publication, by using a center core with a cladding of appropriate index difference to replace a quartz rod 4, as suggested by Dianov, to maximize the fiber’s transmission capacity, while maintaining a reduced level of crosstalk and bending losses as stated by Dianov.
Regarding claim 11, the ’075 publication further discloses a region in which the first linear portion is not present in an interior of the first tubular portion on a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction is a void (empty spaces inside the quartz jacket tube 7 that are not occupied by the rods 2, 3, 4 or the capillaries 5).
Regarding claims 19, 20, the ‘075 publication discloses that the core 21 and the core 31 are each made of quartz glass containing a dopant for increasing the refractive index, such as Ge or P, or quartz glass containing no dopant, and Dianov further suggests that both the core and the cladding may be doped with chlorine (see at least col. 4, last paragraph, col. 7, ll. 58 - col 8, ll. 16), which is known in the art as a dopant that slightly increases the refractive index of silica with the added benefit of thermal stability. It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select chlorine as the dopant for the core or cladding and perform routine experimentations to determine an optimum or workable amount of chlorine to create a desired refractive index profile that can limit optical losses and crosstalk in the multicore fiber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 12, 13, prior art fails to further teach or suggest a second core portion arranged on a center side (i.e., inner side) with respect to the first portion, with a core refractive index different from that of the first core portion, or a refractive index profile formed by the first core portion and the first cladding portion is a step-index type, and a refractive index profile formed by the second core portion and the second cladding portion is one of a staircase type, a W-shape type, and a trench type, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention. The ‘075 publication, in view of Dianov, is the closest available prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or render obvious any rationale for such a modification.
Regarding claims 14-18, prior art fails to furth teaches a plurality of third portions arranged on a center side with respect to the first linear portion, and including a third core portion, and a third cladding portion having a refractive index lower than a maximum refractive index of the third core portion, the third cladding portion surrounding an outer periphery of the third core portion; and a second tubular portion arranged on the center side with respect to the first linear portion, wherein the third linear portions are respectively joined to an inner wall of the second tubular portion, two of the third linear portions are not in contact with each other at least in a portion in the longitudinal direction on a third virtual line connecting centers of two of the third core portions included in the two of the third linear portions on a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention. While prior art such as USP5471553 discloses three layers of concentric cores in a multicore fiber, the physical structures are far too different between inventions of the ‘553 patent and the ‘075 publication for one skilled in the art to consider them as analogous and/or have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the inventions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6539155 discloses a hollow, microstructured optical fiber
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 CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
