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 .
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 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the central core guiding region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinsen et al (US 10,663,768 B2). Martinsen teaches:
1/16. An optical beam delivery device/method (Figs. 1-21) for producing, from a single-mode input beam (at 100/200) having a fundamental mode and an M2 beam quality of about 1.5 or less (Gaussian, Fig. 7A, C14 L23-43; Gaussian is M2=1 by definition), an output beam having an adjustable spatial intensity distribution that is adjustable between near Gaussian (Fig. 7A-C) and ring- shaped profiles (Fig. 9B-C, 10B-C), the near Gaussian profile corresponding to an M2 beam quality of about 1.5 or less (Gaussian M2=1 by definition, the optical beam delivery device (Figs. 1-21) comprising:
a first length of optical fiber (100/200/1100/1200/1300/1400/1500/1600) for adjusting the single-mode input beam to generate an adjustable beam based on controllable perturbation applied to the first length of optical fiber such that, in response to the first length of optical fiber (100/200/1100/1200/1300/1400/1500/1600) being unperturbed, the single-mode input beam propagates through a central region (see index profiles of Figs. 2 and 11-16) of the first length of optical fiber (100/200/1100/1200/1300/1400/1500/1600) to provide the adjustable beam, and in response to the controllable perturbation, the fundamental mode is at least partly displaced into an outer region (any region outside the exact center) of the first length of optical fiber (100/200/1100/1200/1300/1400/1500/1600) to provide the adjustable beam (C11 L8 – C12 L9);
a second length of optical fiber (108/208/1700/1800/1900) for coupling the adjustable beam into one or both a central core confinement region (216/1708/1812/1910) and an annular higher-index confinement region (218/220/1706/1708/1810/1906/1908/1910) of a second length of optical fiber (108/208/1700/1800/1900), the annular higher-index confinement region (218/220/1706/1708/1810/1906/1908/1910) coaxially encompassing an annular anti-guiding region (222/224/1710/1712/1804/1806/1912/1914/1916) separating the central core confinement region (216/1708/1812/1910) from the annular higher-index confinement region (218/220/1706/1708/1810/1906/1908/1910), the second length of optical fiber (108/208/1700/1800/1900) configured to provide at its output the output beam having the adjustable spatial intensity distribution that is adjustable for maintaining the adjustable beam between the near Gaussian (Fig. 7A-C) and ring-shaped profiles (Fig. 9B-C, 10B-C).
2/9. The optical beam delivery device of claim 1/8, in which the central core guiding region has a radius in a range from about three µm to about 15 µm (typical range includes 10 µm diameter – which is 5 µm radius; C8 L33-43).
3/10. The optical beam delivery device of claim 1/8 or claim 2/9, in which a coupling efficiency for the central region of the first length of optical fiber and the central core confinement region of the second length of optical fiber is greater than 95% in response to the first length of optical fiber being (un)perturbed (95% at perturbed means greater unperturbed efficiency; C13 L30-40). Also, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
4/11. The optical beam delivery device of claim 1/8, in which the controllable perturbation comprises different states of bending of the first length of optical fiber (C11 L51 – C12 L21).
5/12. The optical beam delivery device of claim 4/11, in which the first length of optical fiber is further configured to, in response to different intermediate states of the controllable perturbation, produce different corresponding divisions of power localized the central core confinement region and the annular higher-index confinement region (C13 L13-40).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (US 10,088,632 B2).
Martinsen teaches the device and method previously discussed.
Martinsen does not teach expressly the NA of the central core region being about 0.07 and the NA of the annular higher-index region being about 0.14.
Zhou teaches an optical fiber with a NA of a central core region of 0.07 and the NA of a step clad outer confinement region being larger than 0.12 (C10 L51-67).
In the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Martinsen and Zhou are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fibers.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second fiber of Martinsen to use one with the NA values taught by Zhou.
The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the beam parameter product of the signal in the device (Zhou, C10 L51-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach bending fibers to couple modes between input and output or using rotary fibers to do the same: US 2018/0217412, US 2018/0281108, US 10295845, US 10429584, US 10520671, US 10646963, US 10649241, US 10656427, US 10656440, US 10661391, US 10663742, US 10661342, US 10663769, US 10668535, US 10673197, US 10673199, US 10668537, US 10668567, US 10670872, US 10673198, US 10677984, US 10682726, US 10684487, US 10690928, US 10705348, US 10730785, US 10732439, US 10739621, US 10751834, US 10768433.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights