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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-8 and 11-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 24, 2026.
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, 9, and 10 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.
Claim 1 recites the merit or result of "at a wavelength of 1260 nm, ten or more types of LP modes including a fundamental mode are guided in each of the plurality of cores by 1 m or more." The claim is drawn to the structure of a multicore optical fiber and the claim does not appear to recite structure to support the claimed result or merit. The limitation is unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on the structure of the multicore optical fiber. It is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of using the multicore optical fiber with a light source in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. The same applies to claims 9 and 10 as they do not appear to recite structure corresponding to the claimed result/merit. For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as reciting results from a manner of use
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al. ("Spatial Density and Splicing Characteristic Optimized Few-Mode Multi-Core Fiber"; submitted in IDS of 11/25/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto (see, in particular, page 4492, left column, lines 15-39, fig. 1-5, tables 1 and 2, etc.) describes a multicore optical fiber comprising:
a plurality of cores extending along the center axis (see Fig.5; "10-mode 12-core fiber"), and
a common cladding surrounding each of the plurality of cores (see Fig. 5; "the cladding diameter, 217 µm"),
wherein, at a wavelength of 1260 nm, 10 or more types of LP modes including a fundamental mode are guided in each of the plurality of cores for 1 m or more (this limitation is interpreted to be a result from operating the multicore optical fiber and not amount to define any structure. Therefore, the limitation does not serve to structurally distinguish from Sakamoto. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the multicore optical fiber of Sakamoto to be inherently capable of achieving the claimed limitation since the structure claimed is identical to the structure taught by Sakamoto. See MPEP 2112(III). "A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102 AND 103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC")
[Claim 9]
The multicore optical fiber according to claim 9,
wherein a first core having a radius a (µm) and a second core having a radius b (µm) satisfy an adjacent relationship in which a center-to-center distance A (µm) is shortest among the plurality of cores, and the first core and the second core satisfy a relationship below.
34 ≤ Λ ≤ 46
0.6375 < (a+b)/Λ < 0.8625
(In an exemplary fiber in Table 1, a 15-mode fiber has a core diameter of 12.5 µm and a core pitch of 48.8 µm. Sakamoto shows the desire to make the cladding diameter small in order to improve mechanical reliability (p. 4492, column 2, lines 3-5) since Sakamoto states that the 217 µm cladding diameter of the 10-mode is "sufficiently" below the maximum 250 µm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to try to reduce the cladding diameter, and thus the core pitch less than e.g., 37 µm, in order to improve the mechanical reliability of the fiber more than "sufficient" and improve the bending radius.
[Claim 10]
The multicore optical fiber according to claim 9,
wherein a first core having a radius a (µm) and a second core having a radius b (µm) satisfy an adjacent relationship in which a center-to-center distance Λ (µm) is shortest among the plurality of cores, and the first core and the second core satisfy a relationship below.
34 ≤ Λ ≤ 46
0.675 < (a + b)/Λ < 0.825
(See discussion for claim 9 above.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fini et al. (US 2011/0274435) show a multicore fiber having 7 cores and a common cladding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights