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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 4/23/2026 and 09/03/2024 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
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 1-5 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 “substantially” in claims 1-2 and 4-5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. It is unclear where the cut-off exists for what is and is not considered as “substantially” equal. For example, “substantially” could mean a value over 50% or over 99.99%. Perhaps “substantially” means over 91.5%, but the claim does not clearly indicate it and the specification has not defined it.
Claims 2-3 and 5 state multiple “n types of variation” but fails to relate the various n to each other. The examiner notes that n seems most indicative of the number of cores in the multi-core fiber and that all n limitations must necessarily exist in a scenario where the multi-core fiber output surface is not parallel to the lens (such as when the multi-core fiber is obliquely polished). Based on Applicant’s Fig. 14, the number n appears to be relative to the number of cores, yet the claim has not defined n as such. Thus, confusion arises when attempting to distinguish the “n types of variation in a distance” from the “n types of variation in the first beam waist diameter” and from the “n types of beam waist distance sums”. This causes further confusion in claim 5 where n must equal two (2). There must be two “types of variations” but this alone does not make sense. What are the two (2) items being varied? Is n=2 applied to all n only a specific n of the limitations above unless the n are somehow related?
The examiner assumes that the claims are referencing the fiber-to-lens distances in the oblique embodiment which will necessarily cause variations in the distances since no core output surface is the same distance to the lens surface (unless the lens were to be parallel to the oblique surface, but that would defeat the purpose of including the oblique surface to begin with). Generally, beam waist diameter is dependent on wavelength, lens focal length, beam quality factor, and initial beam diameter. The focal length is directly related to the object distance and the image distance. Since the object distances are no longer the same (i.e., each core-to-lens distance is different when the multi-core surface is obliquely polished), the image distance (i.e., each lens-to-beam waist diameter minimum) must necessarily be different. Each core of the multi-core fiber thus establishes its own “type of variation”. Since the claim itself does not make it clear that this is the intended meaning, the examiner is interpreting “n” as a number n representing the number of cores present in the multi-core fiber which necessarily requires n distance variations from each core to the lens, wherein the number n also concordantly represents the number of distance variations from lens to the beam waist diameter minima and n waist beam diameter sums (i.e., if there are 2 cores then there must be two (2) distances from core-to-lens, two (2) distances from lens-to-beam waist diameter minima, and two (2) sums representing each beam waist distance sum).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are also rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimura et al. in WO 2013031836 A1 (hereinafter "Hashimura").
Regarding claim 1, Hashimura discloses a Fan-in/Fan-out device (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a multi-core optical fiber (multi-core fiber 1) which has a pillar shape (fibers are cylindrical and thus also considered to be shaped like pillars), and includes a plurality of first cores (ck; see Fig. 1) extending along an axial direction, and a common cladding (clad 2; see Fig. 2) surrounding the plurality of first cores (ck);
a first lens (22) having a first optical axis parallel to a center axis of the multi-core optical fiber (see Fig. 2), and being arranged so as to face the multi-core optical fiber (see Fig. 2);
a group of second lenses (21; see Fig. 2) including a plurality of second lenses (21; see Fig. 2) each having a second optical axis parallel to the first optical axis (see Fig. 2); and
a group of single-core optical fibers (fiber bundle 10; see Fig. 2) including the same number of single-core optical fibers (single core fibers 100) as the number of the second lenses (in Fig. 2, there are 3 of 100 and 3 ck), each single-core optical fiber having a pillar shape (fibers are cylindrical and thus also considered to be shaped like pillars), and including one second core (core c is interpreted as the second core and is included in each of single core fibers 100) extending along a center axis parallel to the second optical axis (see Fig. 2) and a cladding (clad 101) surrounding the second core (see Fig. 2),
and being configured to propagate light beam in either one direction of a first progress direction and a second progress direction, the first progress direction being a progress direction of light beams which are emitted from the respective first cores of the multi-core optical fiber, pass through the first lens and the second lenses corresponding to the respective first cores, and converge on the respective second cores of the single-core optical fibers corresponding to the second lenses, and the second progress direction a being a progress direction of light beams which are emitted from the respective second cores, pass through the corresponding second lenses and the first lens, and converge on the respective first cores corresponding to the second lenses (light is capable of passing from respective multicore fiber cores to respective single core fiber cores while passing through the respective single core lens and the multiple core lens; light is capable of passing through the system starting from either fiber and propagating to the other fiber; see Fig. 2),
wherein, when defining a beam waist diameter of each of the light beams exited from the first lens as a first beam waist diameter, and defining a distance from the first lens to a beam waist position in a progress direction of a principal ray of each of the light beams as a first beam waist distance based on an assumption that the light beams propagate in the first progress direction, defining a beam waist diameter of each of the light beams exited from the respective second lenses as a second beam waist diameter, and defining a distance from the second lenses to a beam waist position in a progress direction of a principal ray of each of the light beams as a second beam waist distance based on an assumption that the light beams propagate in the second progress direction, and defining a maximum value of a beam waist distance sum at a time when an inter-lens distance is equal to the beam waist distance sum as a distance sum maximum value, the inter-lens distance being a distance between the first lens and the respective second lenses in a progress direction of a principal ray of each of the light beams, and the beam waist distance sum being a sum of the first beam waist distance and the second beam waist distance at a time when the first beam waist diameter matches the second beam waist diameter (see Annotated Fig. 2),
the multi-core optical fiber, the first lens, the group of the second lenses, and the group of the single-core optical fibers are arranged such that the inter-lens distance is substantially equal to the distance sum maximum value, and the beam waist distance sum is 91.5% or more of the distance sum maximum value (see Annotated Fig. 2 where the beam waist distance sum is 100% of the distance sum maximum value; 100% is greater than 91.5%).
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimura et al. in WO 2013031836 A1 (hereinafter "Hashimura") in view of Dao et al. in WO 2022004220 A1 (hereinafter "Dao").
Regarding claim 2, Hashimura discloses the Fan-in/Fan-out device according to claim 1 as discussed above,
wherein each of the single-core optical fibers is arranged with respect to the corresponding second lens such that the second beam waist diameter of the light beam corresponding to each of the single-core optical fiber matches the corresponding first beam waist diameter (the first beam waist is aligned with the second beam waist for each set of cores in Fig. 2), and
wherein the inter-lens distance is substantially equal to the distance sum maximum value (see Annotated Fig. 2), and the n types of the beam waist distance sums each corresponding to n types of the first and the second beam waist diameters are all 91.5% or more of the distance sum maximum value (Fig. 2 shows the scenario where the sum of the first beam waist distance and the second beam waist distance is 100% of the distance sum maximum value).
Hashimura fails to teach:
wherein an end face of the multi-core optical fiber is obliquely polished so as to incline in a predetermined inclination direction with respect to a plane orthogonal to a center axis thereof by a predetermined polishing angle, and thereby occurring n types of variations in a distance between the respective first cores and the first lens in a progress direction of a principal ray of each light beam, and occurring n types of variations in the first beam waist diameter of each of the light beams emitted from the respective first cores.
Dao teaches:
wherein an end face of the multi-core optical fiber is obliquely polished so as to incline in a predetermined inclination direction with respect to a plane orthogonal to a center axis thereof by a predetermined polishing angle (see Fig. 1 where the fiber is obliquely polished so as to incline in a predetermined inclination direction with respect to a plane orthogonal to a center axis thereof by a predetermined polishing angle), and thereby occurring n types of variations in a distance between the respective first cores and the first lens in a progress direction of a principal ray of each light beam (necessarily present since the optical path lengths are different; n is the number of cores present), and occurring n types of variations in the first beam waist diameter of each of the light beams emitted from the respective first cores (necessarily present).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the obliquely polished surface of the multi-core fiber of Dao in the device of Hashimura for the purpose of reducing back-reflection thereby achieving a cleaner signal with less noise.
However, the modification affects the matching of the beam waist diameters assuming that the lens near the multi-core fiber is not parallel to the output surface of the multi-core fiber (which would negate the purpose of adding the oblique angle to begin with). While one sum of first and second waist beam distances may be made to be exactly 100% of the distance sum maximum value, the others could not be without altering factors that affect the waist beam. Assuming all lens on the single-core fiber side are the same and the same wavelength is relied upon throughout the system, then the only variable that could be affected is the locations of the lens within the system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have known at the effective filing date of the invention that altering the inter-lens distances would have resulted in changes to the coupling loss of each fiber-to-fiber pair and would have found it obvious to test various distances to determine what system results in the least coupling loss for the system overall as a matter of routine optimization in order to bring coupling loss to a system-wide minimum, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Hashimura discloses a Fan-in/Fan-out device comprising:
a multi-core optical fiber (multi-core fiber 1) which has a pillar shape (fibers are cylindrical and thus also considered to be shaped like pillars), and includes a plurality of first cores (ck; see Fig. 1) extending along an axial direction, and a common cladding (clad 2; see Fig. 2) surrounding the plurality of first cores (ck);
a first lens (22) having a first optical axis parallel to a center axis of the multi-core optical fiber (see Fig. 2), and being arranged so as to face the multi-core optical fiber (see Fig. 2);
a group of second lenses (21; see Fig. 2) including a plurality of second lenses (21; see Fig. 2) each having a second optical axis parallel to the first optical axis (see Fig. 2); and
a group of single-core optical fibers (fiber bundle 10; see Fig. 2) including the same number of single-core optical fibers (single core fibers 100) as the number of the second lenses (in Fig. 2, there are 3 of 100 and 3 ck), each single-core optical fiber having a pillar shape (fibers are cylindrical and thus also considered to be shaped like pillars), and including one second core (core c is interpreted as the second core and is included in each of single core fibers 100) extending along a center axis parallel to the second optical axis (see Fig. 2) and a cladding (clad 101) surrounding the second core (see Fig. 2),
and being configured to propagate light beam in either one direction of a first progress direction and a second progress direction, the first progress direction being a progress direction of light beams which are emitted from the respective first cores of the multi-core optical fiber, pass through the first lens and the second lenses corresponding to the respective first cores, and converge on the respective second cores of the single-core optical fibers corresponding to the second lenses, and the second progress direction a being a progress direction of light beams which are emitted from the respective second cores, pass through the corresponding second lenses and the first lens, and converge on the respective first cores corresponding to the second lenses (light is capable of passing from respective multicore fiber cores to respective single core fiber cores while passing through the respective single core lens and the multiple core lens; light is capable of passing through the system starting from either fiber and propagating to the other fiber; see Fig. 2),
wherein, when defining a beam waist diameter of each of the light beams exited from the first lens as a first beam waist diameter, and defining a distance from the first lens to a beam waist position in a progress direction of a principal ray of each of the light beams as a first beam waist distance based on an assumption that the light beams propagate in the first progress direction, defining a beam waist diameter of each of the light beams exited from the respective second lenses as a second beam waist diameter, and defining a distance from the second lenses to a beam waist position in a progress direction of a principal ray of each of the light beams as a second beam waist distance based on an assumption that the light beams propagate in the second progress direction, and defining a maximum value of a beam waist distance sum at a time when an inter-lens distance is equal to the beam waist distance sum as a distance sum maximum value, the inter-lens distance being a distance between the first lens and the respective second lenses in a progress direction of a principal ray of each of the light beams, and the beam waist distance sum being a sum of the first beam waist distance and the second beam waist distance at a time when the first beam waist diameter matches the second beam waist diameter (see Annotated Fig. 2),
each of the single-core optical fibers is arranged with respect to the corresponding second lens such that the second beam waist diameter of the light beam corresponding to each of the single-core optical fiber matches the corresponding first beam waist diameter (the first beam waist is aligned with the second beam waist for each set of cores in Fig. 2), and
Hashimura fails to teach:
wherein an end face of the multi-core optical fiber is obliquely polished so as to incline in a predetermined inclination direction with respect to a plane orthogonal to a center axis thereof by a predetermined polishing angle, and thereby occurring n types of variations in a distance between the respective first cores and the first lens in a progress direction of a principal ray of each light beam, and occurring n types of variations in the first beam waist diameter of each of the light beams emitted from the respective first cores.
Dao teaches:
wherein an end face of the multi-core optical fiber is obliquely polished so as to incline in a predetermined inclination direction with respect to a plane orthogonal to a center axis thereof by a predetermined polishing angle (see Fig. 1 where the fiber is obliquely polished so as to incline in a predetermined inclination direction with respect to a plane orthogonal to a center axis thereof by a predetermined polishing angle), and thereby occurring n types of variations in a distance between the respective first cores and the first lens in a progress direction of a principal ray of each light beam (necessarily present since the optical path lengths are different; n is the number of cores present), and occurring n types of variations in the first beam waist diameter of each of the light beams emitted from the respective first cores (necessarily present).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the obliquely polished surface of the multi-core fiber of Dao in the device of Hashimura for the purpose of reducing back-reflection thereby achieving a cleaner signal with less noise.
However, the modification affects the matching of the beam waist diameters assuming that the lens near the multi-core fiber is not parallel to the output surface of the multi-core fiber (which would negate the purpose of adding the oblique angle to begin with). While one sum of first and second waist beam distances may be made to be exactly 100% of the distance sum maximum value, the others could not be without altering factors that affect the waist beam. Assuming all lens on the single-core fiber side are the same and the same wavelength is relied upon throughout the system, then the only variable that could be affected is the locations of the lens within the system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have known at the effective filing date of the invention that altering the inter-lens distances would have resulted in changes to the coupling loss of each fiber-to-fiber pair and would have found it obvious to test various distances to determine what system results in the least coupling loss for the system overall as a matter of routine optimization in order to bring coupling loss to a system-wide minimum, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The modified device of Hashimura/Dao also suggests:
further, when defining the first and the second beam waist diameters at the time when the beam waist distance sum is the distance sum maximum value as a beam-waist-diameter-at-maximum-distance, and defining a maximum value and a minimum value of n types of the first and the second beam waist diameters as a beam waist maximum diameter and a beam waist minimum diameter, respectively (refer to Annotated Fig. 2), but fails to teach that:
the multi-core optical fiber (1) is arranged with respect to the first lens (30) at such a position that the beam waist maximum diameter is greater than the beam-waist-diameter-at-maximum-distance, and the beam waist minimum diameter is smaller than the beam-waist-diameter-at-maximum-distance.
However, when determining the most desirable system-wide coupling loss scenario, it makes sense and thus would be logical to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the ideal position for the first lens with respect to the multi-core optical fiber is the position such that the beam waist maximum diameter is greater than the beam-waist-diameter-at-maximum-distance, and the beam waist minimum diameter is smaller than the beam-waist-diameter-at-maximum-distance and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Hashimura/Dao discloses the Fan-in/Fan-out device according to claim 3 as discussed above,
wherein the inter-lens distance is substantially equal to the distance sum maximum value (necessarily present since the distance must be substantially equal in the lowest coupling loss scenarios).
Regarding claim 5, Hashimura/Dao discloses the Fan-in/Fan-out device according to claim 3 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein a curve defining a relationship between the first and the second beam waist diameters and optical coupling loss includes two local minima where the optical coupling loss becomes zero, and one local maximum positioned between the two local minima when the inter-lens distance is less than the distance sum maximum value,
wherein when defining the first and the second beam waist diameters at the two local minima as a local minimum first beam waist diameter and a local minimum second beam waist diameter in descending order, a difference between the local minimum first beam waist diameter and the local minimum second beam waist diameter increases as the inter-lens distance decreases,
wherein when n = 2,
the inter-lens distance is set so that the difference is substantially equal to a separation amount between the beam waist maximum diameter and the beam waist minimum diameter, and the multi-core optical fiber is arranged with respect to the first lens at such a position that the beam waist maximum diameter substantially matches the local minimum first beam waist diameter and the beam waist minimum diameter substantially matches the local minimum second beam waist diameter.
However, the modified device of Hashimura/Dao recites structure substantially identical to that of the claims, such that claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights