DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Furthermore, Applicant indicated in the Reply dated 03/10/2026 that the independent claims have been amended to incorporate the allowable features of prior dependent claim 4. However, Applicant has not amended intervening claim 2 into the independent claims which was rejected under 112(b) due to its dependence on claim 1 but was otherwise objected to. As noted on page 4 of the previous action, claim 4 was objected to since it in combination with claim 2 alleviated the 112(b) rejection and would include allowable subject matter. However, the Examiner did not indicate that claim 4 without intervening claim 2 would be allowable.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuer, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0136404 in view of Zalevsky et al, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0259707.
Regarding claim 1, Feuer teaches an optical transmission system that transmits signal light by using a multi-core optical fiber having two or more cores as transmission paths (see Feuer Figure 9, multi-core fiber 902), the optical transmission system comprising:
two or more transmitters (see Figure 9, multi-channel transmitter 904 and multichannel receiver 906 and paragraph [0020], “It is to be understood that the multi-channel transmitter 204 and the multi-channel receiver 206 can both be implemented using a transceiver capable of transmitting and receiving optical signals) that transmit signal light to adjacent cores (see Figure 9, adapter 910 and paragraph [0020], “A single-core to multi-core adapter 210 receives the multiplexed optical signals transmitted through the respective single-core fibers 208a-208d and transmits the multiplexed optical signal from each single-core fiber 208a-208d onto a respective core of the multicore fiber 202”), in opposite directions (signal light would necessarily be traveling in opposite directions if devices 904 and 906 are transceivers per paragraph [0020]); and
a pump light oscillator (see Figure 9, multi-pump source 916) that injects pump light into the same cores as transmission cores to which the signal light is transmitted of the adjacent cores such that the pump light propagates in the same directions as or directions reverse to the directions of the signal light (see paragraph [0040], “In particular, the multi-pump source 916 pumps multiple light waves 918a-918d, each of which are introduced onto a respective core of a multicore optical fiber 920 by a single-core to multi-core adapter 922. The light waves are then introduced onto respective cores of the multicore fiber 902 by a multi-core wavelength coupler 924. The light waves 918a-918d can be light pulses that are staggered for adjacent cores”), and perform distributed Raman amplification of the signal light by using the pump light (see paragraph [0038], “Using this staggered timing to pump pulses of light into the cores of a multicore fiber, it is possible to achieve a net Raman gain that is equal for all cores, even while the cores have different modal velocities at virtually all points along the fiber”),
wherein a signal light gain of the signal light transmitted from the transmitters is set such that a ratio of signal intensity to a crosstalk noise intensity leaked from the adjacent transmission cores is high (see paragraph [0040], “FIG. 9 illustrates a system for transmitting optical signals through a multicore optical fiber with reduced inter-core crosstalk according to an embodiment of the present disclosure”).
Feuer does not expressively teach two or more pump light oscillators and that the ratio of signal intensity to the crosstalk noise intensity leaked from the adjacent transmission cores is maximized.
Regarding the oscillators, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substation to replace the multi-pump source transmitting multiple wavelengths in Feuer with individual pump sources with singular wavelengths to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting pump light and amplifying the signal light.
Regarding the ratio, Zalevsky in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches sending light signals in multiple transmission cores as taught in Feuer (see Zalevsky paragraph [0055]) wherein a ratio of signal intensity to a crosstalk noise intensity leaked from adjacent transmission cores is maximized (see paragraph [0055]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of maximizing a ratio of intensity to crosstalk as taught in Zalevsky with the system taught in Feuer, the motivation being to increase signal integrity in the system.
Method claim 5 recites similar limitations as claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
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 CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635