CTNF 18/701,304 CTNF 74513 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al, US Pub. 2019/0115715 . Hasegawa et al disclose an optical amplifier and multicore optical fiber comprising: a first transmission MCF 7 and an amplification MCF 1 a that is connected to the first transmission MCF 7 with a coupling MCF 3a and a multiplexer/demultiplexer 4 interposed therebetween, wherein the first transmission MCF 7 has a number of cores and a core interval that substantially match the amplification MCF (paragraphs [0027]-[0044], fig. 1-4) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al in view of Mizuno, WO 2020013096. The teachings of Hasegawa et al have been discussed above . Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa et al fail to disclose wherein the multi-core optical amplifier includes a plurality of the multi-core optical amplifier provided with different numbers of the plurality of amplification cores. Mizuno et al disclose an optical amplification relay system comprising: a multi-core optical amplifier 121-1 that amplifies six single-mode lights and a multi-core optical amplifier 121-2 that amplifies four single-mode lights (see Fig. 1 and the corresponding English translation). In view of the teachings of Mizuno et al, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to easily have conceived of employing the configuration described in Mizuno et al in the teachings of Hasegawa et al for ensuring a required number of channels for communication is available for connection. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art. Regarding claims 3 and 18, Hasegawa et al as modified by Mizuno et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein the multi-core optical amplifier includes a plurality of the multi-core optical amplifier provided with different numbers of the plurality of amplification cores. However, using different numbers of amplification cores is common in the art for effective power distribution, that is more amplification cores to produce higher total amplification capacity and for general channel management. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Hasegawa et al as modified by Mizuno et al. Regarding claim 14, Hasegawa et al as modified by Mizuno et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of amplification cores contains rare-earth ions, and the multi-core optical amplifier includes a double clad structure. However, the type of material is a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements. Furthermore, such material is common in the art. Therefore, a person skilled in the art could easily have conceived of employing such common configuration as the fiber structure of the amplification MCF as described in Hasegawa et al as modified by Mizuno et al . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-13, 15-116, and 19-20 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a light amplification device and a method thereof which includes a multi-core optical amplifier including a plurality of amplification cores, and a connection circuit for connecting the multi-core optical amplifier and a multi-core optical transmission path including a plurality of transmission path cores, wherein a total number of the plurality of amplification cores is equal to or greater than a number of transmission cores through which signal light propagates, among the plurality of transmission path cores, wherein the connection circuit connects the multi-core optical amplifier and the multi-core optical transmission path according to an operation mode of the light amplification device for minimizing power consumption, the connection circuit connects the multi-core optical amplifier and the multi-core optical transmission path in a connection form in which a total of excitation light intensity for each of the multi-core optical amplifier is minimized. These limitations in conjunction with other limitation in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. IP et al, US Pub. 2018/0102626, disclose a transmission system for optical communication. Matsuo et al, US Patent No. 9,515,450, disclose an amplifying optical fiber and an optical amplifier . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00. 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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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. DANIEL ST CYR Primary Examiner Art Unit 2876 /DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/701,304 Page 2 Art Unit: 2876
Prosecution Insights