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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (US 2005/0002606 hereinafter “James”) in view of Ogawa et al (US 2010/0322559 hereinafter “Ogawa”).
Regarding claim 1; James discloses a system (figure 4) for measuring roughness of a core sidewall (302 @ figure 3) of an optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) based on mode excitation (guide mode @ figure 4), comprising:
a few-mode long-period fiber grating (403 @ figure 4),
an optical power meter (e.g., optical spectrometer 406 @ figure 4), and
a processor (paragraph [0086]: e.g., a signal to be output from the radiation detector to a processor, not shown.);
wherein an optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured is arranged between the few-mode long-period fiber grating (403 @ figure 4) and the optical power meter (406 @ figure 4); and
a center line of the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured coincides with a center line of the few-mode long-period fiber grating (403 @ figure 4); and
a laser beam (402 @ figure 4) is incident on the optical waveguide (402 @ figure 4) to be measured after passing through the few-mode long-period fiber grating (403 @ figure 4), and then is incident on the optical power meter (406 @ figure 4); and
the optical power meter (406 @ figure 4) detects output power of the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured; and
the processor (paragraph [0086]) is connected with the optical power meter (406 @ figure 4); wherein the processor (paragraph [0086]) for determining the core (202 @ figure 3 and/or Core, n1 @ figure 4) of the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 3) to be measured according to the output power (406 @ figure 4), output modes (paragraph [0005]: e.g., A LPG consists of a period modulation of the optical properties of an optical waveguide, typically an optical fiber. The periodicity lies typically in the range 100 μm to 1000 μm. The LPG acts to couple light from the propagating core mode to co-propagating cladding modes. Since the cladding modes suffer from high attenuation, the transmission spectrum consists of a series of attenuation bands centred on wavelengths) of a corresponding few-mode long-period fiber grating (403 @ figure 4) and modes of the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured;
wherein the modes of the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured are obtained by exciting the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured after the laser beam (402 @ figure 4) passes through the few-mode long-period fiber grating (403 @ figure 4). See figures 1-15
PNG
media_image1.png
614
1439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a scattering loss caused by the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide to be measured and the processor is configured to calculate an equivalent value of the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide. However, Ogawa teaches that it is known in the art to provide a scattering loss caused by the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide to be measured and the processor (e.g., a mode solver in paragraph [0329]) is configured to calculate an equivalent value of the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide (paragraph [0329]: e.g., In order to evaluate the effects of roughness on the core side walls, the basic propagation mode was simulated using a mode solver, and the effective refractive index of the ribs was calculated. In Examples 1 and 2, the optical confinement coefficient in the core region was also calculated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of James with a scattering loss caused by the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide to be measured and the processor is configured to calculate an equivalent value of the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide as taught by Ogawa for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the manufacturing process of the effective refractive index of the optical waveguide and reducing processing time and costs.
Regarding claim 7; James discloses the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured is a rectangular optical waveguide (see examiner noted in figure 4).
Regarding claim 8; James discloses one end (figure 4: coupled to LPG 403 @ figure 4) of the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured is close to the few-mode long-period fiber grating (403 @ figure 4); and another end (coupled to optical spectrometer 406 @ figure 4) of the optical waveguide (404 @ figure 4) to be measured is close to the optical power meter (406 @ figure 4).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Ogawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bock et al (US Patent No. 9,366,809 hereinafter “Bock”).
Regarding claim 2; James in view of Ogawa combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the few-mode long-period fiber grating comprises a first few-mode long-period fiber grating and a second few-mode long-period fiber grating. However, Bock teaches that it is known in the art to provide the few-mode long-period fiber grating (100 @ figure 1) comprises a first few-mode long-period fiber grating (142 @ figure 1) and a second few-mode long-period fiber grating (162 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of James with limitation above as taught by Bock for the purpose of improving refractive index sensitivity and reducing the grating period to couple the power to even higher order cladding modes.
Regarding claim 3; James in view of Ogawa combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for optical fiber structures of the first few-mode long-period fiber grating and the second few-mode long-period fiber grating are same. However, Bock teaches that it is known in the art to provide the few-mode long-period fiber grating (100 @ figure 1) comprises a first few-mode long-period fiber grating (142 @ figure 1) and a second few-mode long-period fiber grating (162 @ figure 1) are same (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of James with limitation above as taught by Bock for the purpose of improving refractive index sensitivity and reducing the grating period to couple the power to even higher order cladding modes.
Regarding claim 4; James in view of Ogawa and Bock combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for grating periods of the first few-mode long-period fiber grating and the second few-mode long-period fiber grating are different. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of James with limitation above for the purpose of improving refractive index sensitivity and reducing the grating period to couple the power to even higher order cladding modes, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 5; James in view of Ogawa and Bock combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the output modes of the few-mode long-period fiber grating comprise a first output mode and a second output mode; and the first few-mode long-period fiber grating corresponds to the first output mode, and the second few-mode long-period fiber grating corresponds to the second output mode. However, Bock teaches that it is known in the art to provide the output modes of the few-mode long-period fiber grating (see examiner noted in figure 1A below) comprise a first output mode and a second output mode; and the first few-mode long-period fiber grating (142 @ figure 1) corresponds to the first output mode, and the second few-mode long-period fiber grating (162 @ figure 1) corresponds to the second output mode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine system of James with limitation above as taught by Bock for the purpose of improving refractive index sensitivity and reducing the grating period to couple the power to even higher order cladding modes.
PNG
media_image2.png
603
1437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a system for measuring roughness of a core sidewall of an optical waveguide comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the laser beam is incident on the optical waveguide to be measured after passing through the first few-mode long-period fiber grating, and then is incident on the optical power meter after being subjected to the scattering loss caused by the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide to be measured; and the optical power meter detects first output power of the optical waveguide to be measured; the laser beam is incident on the optical waveguide to be measured after passing through the second few-mode long-period fiber grating, and then is incident on the optical power meter after being subjected to the scattering loss caused by the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide to be measured; and the optical power meter detects second output power of the optical waveguide to be measured; and the processor is connected with the optical power meter; and the processor is configured to calculate the equivalent value of the roughness of the core sidewall of the optical waveguide to be measured according to the first output power, the second output power, the first output mode, the second output mode and the modes of the optical waveguide to be measured in set forth of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Bock et al (US 2014/0254977) discloses an optical sensor has a waveguide having a core, a cladding having an outer surface and a long period fiber grating. The core, the cladding and the long period fiber grating collectively provide at least two resonant wavelengths.
2) Tsao et al (US 2003/0072005) discloses the SOI Waveguide interferometer sensor we designed presents high sensitivity than pure single waveguide Bragg grating sensor and fiber Bragg grating sensor by adjusting the length of the two interferometric arms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
January 23, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877