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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are 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.
The term “essentially equal” in claim 2 and “essentially constant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially equal/constant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghiringhelli et al (US 10,641,961 B2).
Ghiringhelli teaches:
1. An optical fiber (320, Figs. 32-37), comprising:
a core (1) region having a first refractive index ncore (Fig. 34); and
a specialized cladding layer (2, 3) disposed to surround the core region (1), the specialized cladding layer (2, 3) doped with both a refractive index-decreasing dopant (Ge) and at least one refractive index-increasing dopant (F) (Table 5) in a composition such that the surrounding cladding layer exhibits a second refractive index nclad less than ncore (Fig. 34), the refractive index-decreasing dopant (F) exhibiting a higher diffusion rate than the at least one refractive index-increasing dopant (Ge) (Fig. 3, 179 is F and 177 is Ge; C16 L45-64) sufficient to create a region of raised refractive index nped (181) surrounding the core region (1) where ncore > nped > nclad (Fig. 34).
Ghiringhelli does not state that the fiber is formed during the formation of an optical fiber taper.
Ghiringhelli does teaches using the disclosed fibers for fiber tapers (Fig. 4, C17 L17-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try tapering the fiber of Fig. 34, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As discussed, Ghiringhelli teaches using the disclosed fibers in a tapering step so the tapering is identified and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the fiber of Fig. 34 to succeed in a tapering step since the fiber is already formed by heating as discussed.
Ghiringhelli further teaches:
2. The optical fiber as defined in claim 1 wherein the specialized cladding layer comprises silica (C26 L22-25), with the concentrations of the refractive index-decreasing dopant (F) and the at least one refractive index-increasing dopant (Ge) selected such that nclad is essentially equal to the refractive index of undoped silica (see 3 is Fig. 34 at the 0 point, corresponding to undoped silica).
3. The optical fiber as defined in claim 1 wherein the refractive index-decreasing dopant included in the specialized cladding layer comprises fluorine (F) (Table 5).
4. The optical fiber as defined in claim 3 wherein the refractive index-increasing dopant consists of at least one component selected from the group consisting of: germanium (Ge) and chlorine (Cl) (Table 5).
5. The optical fiber as defined in claim 4 wherein the relative concentrations of the F and one or more of Ge and Cl are controlled to exhibit a defined refractive index nclad within the specialized cladding layer (2, 3) in a non-tapered section of the optical fiber (320) (the disclosure discusses a non-tapered fiber).
6. The optical fiber as defined in claim 5 wherein the defined refractive index within the specialized cladding layer (2, 3) maintains an essentially constant value as a function of optical fiber radius (Fig. 34, the RIPs of 2 and 3 are flat between transitions).
7. The optical fiber as defined in claim 5 wherein the defined refractive index within the specialized cladding layer changes as a function of optical fiber radius, forming a graded-index specialized cladding layer (Fig. 34, the transition between 1, 2 and 3 can be considered graded since there is a change as a function of radius) (note the claim language ambiguity allows for the RIP of Fig. 34 to read on both the graded and flat limitations of claims 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Ghiringhelli does not state explicitly that the fiber has a defined refractive index within the specialized cladding layer that is created to match a refractive index of a coupling optical element, but Ghiringhelli does teach coupling the fiber with another fiber (C35 L25-27) and teaches the need to match the modes between spliced fibers (C25 L27-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try matching the refractive index of the cladding layer with a coupling element, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Matching refractive index between coupling elements is a predictable solution to maximizing coupling between fibers to any person of ordinary skill the art and there is no reason this method would not work in Ghiringhelli.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghiringhelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gui et al (US 2021/0072462 A1).
Ghiringhelli teaches the optical fiber previously discussed.
Ghiringhelli does not teach expressly the adiabatic criteria of claim 9.
Gui teaches an adiabatic tapered optical fiber (10, Fig.2A) wherein the taper portion is changed according to relationship shown in P0084, which corresponds to the same mode and effective radius/diameter consideration as claim 9.
Ghiringhelli and Gui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fibers for tapering.
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 adiabatic criteria of the fiber taught by Ghiringhelli to use the relationship described by Gui.
The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize the light propagation loss through the taper (Gui, P0084).
Ghiringhelli further teaches:
10. The optical fiber as defined in claim 9 wherein the refractive index of an interior portion of the specialized cladding layer (2, 3) immediately adjacent to the core region (1) increases in value as a tapering process of the optical fiber progresses, yielding formation of a pedestal region (181) surrounding the core region (1).
11. The optical fiber as defined in claim 1 wherein the core region (1) can include a rare earth dopant, providing an optical fiber useful for operation of an optical fiber amplifier (C35 L13-16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following teach special cladding fibers for tapering/splicing: US 2018/0292604, US 12519279, US 12627114.
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