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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-025021 , filed on February 21, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on October 31, 2024, August 12, 2025, and February 17, 2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Three (3) sheets of drawings were filed on August 15, 2024.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become
aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopp (US20170299806A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kopp discloses an optical fiber comprising (multicore fiber 800) : a core (cores 1-7); a helical section (CFG 805) in which the core has a helical shape (FIG. 8); and a first end part (Region 811) that in included in a first non-helical section (Par. [0245]: cores remain substantially fixed) in which the core has a linear shape (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses the optical fiber in the helical section (CFG 805) is connected to the optical fiber in the first non-helical section (FIG. 8. Region 811).
Regarding claim 3, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses the helical section is continuous with the first non-helical section (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses a second end part (region 812) that includes a second non-helical section (Par. [0245]: cores remain substantially fixed) in which the core as a linear shape (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses the optical fiber in the helical section (CFG 805) is connected with the optical fiber in the second non-helical section (Region 812. FIG.8).
Regarding claim 6, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses the helical section is continuous with the second non-helical section (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses the helical section is longer in length than the first non-helical section (FIG.8 illustrates section 805 longer than 811).
Regarding claim 9, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses the helical section includes, in an alternating pattern, a section in which the core turns to the right and a section in which the core turns to the left (Par. [0242]: one twisted portion may have a different handedness from another twisted portion).
Regarding claim 10, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses a clad (cladding 815) surrounding the core (Par. [0250]: cladding surrounding cores), wherein the helical section, a center of the core is spaced from the center of the clad (FIG. 8:).
Regarding claim 11, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp further discloses one or more additional cores(FIG. 8, cores 1-7).
Regarding claim 12, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1.Kopp further discloses the core in the first non-helical section or the first gently helical section has an effective refractive index higher than that of the core in the helical section (FIG. 2) . Kopp teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be necessarily present. The burden is on the applicant to show that the device of Kopp does not possess and is not capable of these functional characteristics or properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 13, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Further discloses the first end part (Region 811) of the optical fiber is attached to a structure (Pitch reducing optical fiber array (PROFA) 850a and 850b. FIG. 9 and 10) configured not to rotate ( Par.[0239A]: The PROFA tip is fusion spliced to the MCF and therefore is not configured to rotate, as fusion splices do not allow rotation)
Regarding claim 14, Kopp discloses the optical fiber according to claim 1; one fan-in/fan-out devices (Pitch reducing optical fiber array (PROFA) 850a and 850b. FIG. 9 and 10) connected with one end (Region 811) of the optical fiber. (The definition of a fan-in/fan-out structure is Defined it as a high-density transition component that expands ("fans out") or compresses ("fans in") the spacing (pitch) between multiple optical channels without losing signal quality. The PROFA is understood to be a pitch reducing fiber optic array (see Par. [0008]), wherein the pitch is greater at one in and smaller at another in, thereby forming a fan-in device in one direction and a fan-out device in another direction as illustrated in Figure 9 and 10).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gregg et al. (US20200081187A1), hereafter Gregg.
Regarding claim 15, Gregg discloses a method for manufacturing an optical device (100, Fig. 1; Fig. 4) comprising a cutting an optical fiber (Par. [0038]: cleaving of twisted fiber) including a core in a gently helical section (Par. [0021 ]-[0022]: The tapered section, having an increased pitch P relative to the non-tapered section, is therefore relative 'gently' helical. Fig. 2 twisted fiber 250. Core section 251), wherein the optical fiber has a helical section (Par. [0030]: twisted fiber 250. FIG. 2. The first position of the core in diagram 260 and the second position of core in diagram 261 illustrated a helical configuration) in which the core has a helical shape (Par. [0030]: core section 251 may be twisted. FIG. 2) and the gently helical section in which a total number of helices of the core pure unit length is smaller than that in the helical section (Par. [0021 ]-[0022]: the tapered section, having an increased pitch P relative to the non-tapered section. Thus there is a gently helical sections and a helical section. ).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp (US20170299806A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kopp discloses the device of claim 1. Kopp fails to disclose the helical section is shorter in length than the first non-helical section.
However, there only three options exist for the length of the helical section with respect to the non-helical section and/or the gently helical section, wherein, the length of the helical section is must either be longer, shorter, or the same as the length of the non-helical section and/or the gently helical section. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the length of the helical section with respect to the other sections would affect the optical output of the device with respect to the structure of the light beam traversing these sections and would have expected reasonable success regardless of the chosen length. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a helical section that is shorter in length than the first non-helical section or the first gently helical section for the purpose of obtaining a desired output beam profile, since there are a limited number of known options for choice of relative lengths of the sections, since all three options present the expectation of reasonably success, and since a change in size is generally considered to be with the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pare et al. (US10162107B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights