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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 01/31/2022. A certified copy of the JP2022-013538 application was received 01/31/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/02/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
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.
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 2-3 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.
With regards to claims 2 and 3, the claims recite “…wherein a relative refractive index difference of the core with respect to the clad is equal to or greater than …[X]…%”. It is unclear if
the refractive index of the cladding is equal to or greater than X% the refractive index of the core,
if the refractive index of the core is equal to or greater than X% the refractive index of the cladding,
if the difference between the RI of the core and the RI of pure silica is greater than X% of the difference between the RI of the cladding and the RI of pure silica,
if the difference between the RI of the cladding and the RI of pure silica is greater than X% of the difference between the RI of the core and the RI of the pure silica, or
another interpretation.
The limitations are indefinite because they create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner will adopt interpretation (2) above.
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20160274299 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Li discloses a polarization maintaining fiber comprising:
a core (Li/Fig1/Core 10);
paired stress applying parts disposed on both sides of the core (Fig1/Stress applying parts 12); and
a clad encompassing the core and the paired stress applying parts (Fig1/Clad 11).
Li does not explicitly state that
when the polarization maintaining fiber has a fiber length of 2 m and a bend radius of 140 mm, the polarization maintaining fiber has a cut-off wavelength equal to or greater than 1.20 microns and less than 1.31 microns, and
when the polarization maintaining fiber has a bend radius of 5 mm and twists at a rate of one rotation per 31.4 mm of fiber length, the polarization maintaining fiber has a bending loss equal to or less than 6.6 dB at a wavelength of 1.31 microns.
However, the polarization maintaining fiber of Li has otherwise similar structure and is comprised of similar materials (Germanium, Boron, and Quartz) to those of the claimed fiber, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the polarization maintaining fiber of Li such that it adhered to the above conditions since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
With regards to claim 2, Li discloses the polarization maintaining fiber according to claim 1. Li does not disclose a relative refractive index difference of the core with respect to the clad being equal to or greater than 0.35%. However, Li does disclose a relative refractive index difference of the core with respect to the clad being 0.34% (Paragraph 33/“…a single mode core (in this embodiment the core is circular) with relative refractive index delta of 0.34%…”) and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polarization maintaining fiber of Li such that a relative refractive index difference of the core with respect to the clad equal to or greater than 0.35% since doing so would increase optical containment and facilitate bending with reduced losses.
With regards to claim 3, Li discloses the polarization maintaining fiber according to claim 1, wherein a relative refractive index difference of the core with respect to the clad is equal to or less than 0.45% (Paragraph 33/“…a single mode core (in this embodiment the core is circular) with relative refractive index delta of 0.34%…”).
With regards to claim 4, Li discloses the polarization maintaining fiber according to claim 1. Li does not disclose the clad as having a diameter equal to or less than 80 microns, but does disclose the clad as having a diameter of 100 microns (Table 1) and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polarization maintaining fiber of Li such that it has a diameter of 80 microns or less since doing so would reduce the fiber’s minimum bend radius and allow for sharper turns.
With regards to claim 5, Li discloses the polarization maintaining fiber according to claim 1, Li does not disclose the polarization maintaining fiber as having a mode field diameter equal to or less than 8.8 microns at the wavelength of 1.31 microns, but does disclose the polarization maintaining fiber as having a MFD of 9.1 microns at the wavelength of 1.31 microns (Table 1), and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the polarization maintaining fiber of Li such that it has a MFD of 8.8 microns or less at a wavelength of 1.31 microns since doing so would reduce bending losses.
With regards to claim 6, Li discloses the polarization maintaining fiber according to claim 1, wherein the polarization maintaining fiber has a mode field diameter equal to or greater than 8.0 microns at the wavelength of 1.31 microns (Table 1/Row 1/Column 2/“9.1”).
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Luo (US 20170139129 A1) [Figure 1 and tables 1-2]
Sillard (US 8798423 B2) [Tables 1-3]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights