DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s signed response, submitted 09/04/2026, which includes amendments to drawings and claims.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are amended.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Examiner agrees that the amendments overcome all previous objections and rejections, which are hereby withdrawn. No new matter was introduced. Additionally, while Applicant did not acknowledge the sections in the previous office action (OA) regarding Priority (parts 2-3 of OA) and the Information Disclosure Statement (part 4 of OA), Examiner nonetheless withdraws the request for translations and/or copies. Furthermore, Examiner recognizes the art previously discussed in the Relevant Prior Art section (part 22 of OA) is not prior art.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s statement that “Hasegawa… is silent as to wherein the rare earth element includes erbium,” Applicant’s own response quotes Hasegawa as discussing erbium-doping. However, Examiner agrees that “Hasegawa… is silent as to… wherein the amplification optical fiber has a length set according to a doping concentration of the erbium such that, even when the doping concentration of the erbium differs, an equivalent power conversion efficiency is obtained for signal light having a wavelength of 1565 nanometers (nm) or more and 1610 nm or less” and finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s statement that “Kosaka does not remedy the deficiencies of Hasegawa… with respect to [amended] claim 1,” Examiner agrees and finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive. While Kosaka mentions determining a length based on dopant concentration to obtain a required gain, Kosaka is silent on power conversion efficiency.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
The previous prior art rejections are appropriately updated and wherein all additions (by Examiner and/or Applicant) are underlined and all deletions are omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2019/0115715) in view of Yamashita (JP 2004047785 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hasegawa teaches An amplification optical fiber [0030, #1 of Fig. 2] doped with a rare earth element [0031, erbium (Er)], the amplification optical fiber comprising:
a first cladding [0030, #12 of Fig. 2] enclosing two or more cores [0030, #11 of Fig. 2] of the amplification optical fiber [#1] and a second cladding enclosing the first cladding [0030, #13 over #12 in Fig. 2],
wherein the two or more cores are disposed inside the first cladding in a cross section of the amplification optical fiber [0030, #11 inside #12 in Fig. 2], and
a core cladding ratio Rcc, which is a ratio of a sum of areas of the two or more cores to a sum of areas of the two or more cores and the first cladding in the cross section of the amplification optical fiber, is 0.0095 < Rcc < 0.11 [0033, core diameter 2-16um, inner cladding diameter 124-126um, so Rcc is (2/126)2-(16/124)2 per core, or 0.00025-0.017 per core. Using multiple cores yields an Rcc range overlapping, and thereby anticipating, the claimed Rcc range],
wherein the rare earth element includes erbium [0031], and
wherein the signal light has a wavelength of 1565 nanometers (nm) or more and 1610 nm or less [0033, 1530-1610nm].
Hasegawa does not explicitly teach – but Yamashita does teach wherein the amplification optical fiber has a length set according to a doping concentration of the erbium such that, even when the doping concentration of the erbium differs, an equivalent power conversion efficiency is obtained [Abstract, 0004, 0007, specifically that higher dopant concentrations permit shortening fiber length without deteriorating power conversion efficiency].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of optical amplification using doped optical fibers, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the length of the optical amplifier of Hasegawa based on the dopant concentration to prevent deteriorating the power conversion efficiency [Yamashita, 0004].
Regarding Claim 2, Hasegawa as modified above teaches wherein the two or more cores constitute a core structure and a core pitch in which crosstalk between the cores is -26 decibels (dB) or more [0034, inter-core crosstalk > -17dB].
Regarding Claim 3, Hasegawa as modified above teaches An optical amplifier [0036-0051, Fig. 4] comprising:
the amplification optical fiber according to claim 1 [See above. 0037, #1a of Fig. 4 is #1 of Fig. 1, so Figs. 1 and 4 are compatible embodiments];
a pump light source for output of pump light for exciting the rare earth element [0036, #5a of Fig. 4], with which the amplification optical fiber is doped [0031];
and a pump light combiner for injection of the pump light [0037, #4, specifically #4d, with #3a of Fig. 4], from the pump light source [#5a], into the first cladding [0032, pump light propagated through #12 of Fig. 1, i.e. #12a of Fig. 4, so must be injected].
Regarding Claim 4, Hasegawa as modified above teaches wherein the amplification optical fiber amplifies signal light [0033], having a wavelength of 1565 nm or more and 1610 nm or less [0033, 1530-1610nm], for propagation through the two or more cores [0033].
Regarding Claim 5, Hasegawa as modified above teaches A method for controlling the optical amplifier according to claim 3, the method comprising: adjusting a length of the amplification optical fiber to amplify signal light [Yamashita: Abstract, 0004, 0007, as above] having a wavelength of 1565 nm or more and 1610 nm or less [Hasegawa: 0033, 1530-1610nm]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of optical amplification using doped optical fibers, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the length of the optical amplifier of Hasegawa based on the dopant concentration to prevent deteriorating the power conversion efficiency [Yamashita, 0004].
Relevant Prior Art
In addition to applicant-provided prior art, the prior art used in the above rejection, and art used in the previous rejection, Examiner identified the following prior art as relevant:
Yamashita (JP 2004006634 A) discloses improving PCE using bidirectional pumping light to allow for shorter fibers [0018].
Feillens (JP 2004505458 A) discloses using erbium-doped amorphous YAG material to reduce fiber length and thereby reduce stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) and cross-phase modulation (XPM) effects [0077].
Conclusions
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 MICHAEL ALEX DECARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m..
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights