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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2025-01-17 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Status
Claims 13-24 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. Claims 1-12 are canceled. No claims have been allowed.
Priority
Applicant's claim for foreign priority to Japan Patent Application No. 2022-093340, filed June 8, 2022, is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitations within claim 21 are not shown within the drawings, namely that the one or more pairs of Fan-In/Fan-Out (FI/FO) devices are identifiable from each other in view of one or more of a color of a surface of a single-core fiber, a color of a surface of a housing, a character printed on the surface of the single-core fiber or housing, a shape of the housing, or a label attached to the single-core fiber. Figures 2, 3, 20, and 21 schematically identify FI/FO devices and their port-to-core coupling relationships, but no figure depicts the recited physical identification indicia. The drawings do not show different colors applied to the single-core fibers or housings, do not show characters physically printed on the fibers or housings, do not depict different housing shapes used to identify the FI/FO devices, and do not show labels attached to the single-core fibers. The reference designations used in the drawings identify components for purposes of the disclosure and do not depict the physical identification features expressly recited in claim 21. These feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the
drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Any correction must comply with 37 CFR 1.121 and must not introduce new matter:
Paragraph [0021]
describes the reverse-type multi-core fiber connected body Cc and states that, at end surface σ2, the first port P1 is coupled with "the core a1 located at the upper left" and the second port P2 is also coupled with "the core a1 located at the upper right." The same core a1 cannot occupy both the upper-left and upper-right positions on the same end surface, and this wording is inconsistent with Fig. 20(c) and with the immediately following explanation that the first port P1 of one FI/FO device is coupled through the multi-core fiber to the second port P2 of the other FI/FO device, while the second port P2 is coupled to the first port P1. Fig. 20(c) identifies core a2 at the upper-left position of end surface σ2 and core a1 at the upper-right position. Applicant is required to correct the inconsistent core
designation in paragraph [0021] so that the written description corresponds to Fig. 20(c) and the stated port-to-port coupling relationship.
Claim 21 / paragraphs [0131] and [0138]-[0140]
do not use corresponding terminology for the identification relationship. Claim 21 recites that "the one or more pairs of FI/FO devices are identifiable from each other," whereas the description states that "the paired FI/FO devices are identifiable from each other" and repeatedly describes identifying the two types of individual FI/FO devices from each other. The description therefore does not provide clear support or antecedent basis for an identification relationship between one FI/FO pair and another FI/FO pair as the claim is presently worded. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Applicant is required to bring claim 21 and the description into clear correspondence, either by amending claim 21 to conform to the disclosed device-to-device identification relationship or by otherwise clarifying the intended relationship using support present in the application as originally filed. Any amendment to the specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. 132(a) and 37 CFR 1.121 and may not introduce new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20,
claim 20 recites that each pair of FI/FO devices has either "a reversely symmetrical coupling structure, or a congruent coupling structures." The article "a" is grammatically inconsistent with the plural noun "structures." In view of claim 19 and the written description, the intended terminology is reasonably ascertainable, but the claim language should be corrected so that the alternative is stated grammatically and consistently, for example by using the singular "a congruent coupling structure" if that is the intended wording.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and recites that "the one or more pairs of FI/FO devices are identifiable from each other" in view of one or more recited physical characteristics. Claim 20, however, defines each pair as including FI/FO devices respectively connected to ends of a corresponding multi-core fiber. As written, claim 21 does not clearly identify what entities must be "identifiable from each other." Under one reasonable reading, different FI/FO pairs must be identifiable from other FI/FO pairs. Under another reasonable reading, the two individual FI/FO devices forming each pair must be identifiable from one another. These readings impose materially different structural requirements.
The ambiguity is particularly apparent because claim 20 expressly permits only "one" pair of FI/FO devices. If claim 21 is read as requiring pair-to-pair identification, the recitation that one pair is "identifiable from each other" has no clear second pair to which "each other" refers. If claim 21 instead intends identification between the two FI/FO devices within a pair, the claim does not say so. The ambiguity is compounded by the subsequent alternatives. Claim 21 refers to a single-core fiber connected to "an end portion ... of each of the one or more pairs of FI/FO devices" and to "a housing of each of the one or more pairs of
FI/FO devices," although the specification describes end portions and housings of the individual FI/FO devices, not an end portion or housing of a pair as a collective entity.
The written description does not cure the ambiguity. Paragraph [0131] states that "the paired FI/FO devices are identifiable from each other" based on the color of a single-core fiber, the color of a housing, a printed character, a housing shape, or a label. Paragraphs [0138]-[0140] similarly describe the paired FI/FO devices and explain that the disclosed features make it possible to identify "two types of FI/FO devices from each other." Thus, the intrinsic record describes device-to-device identification within the paired devices, whereas claim 21 is presently drafted to recite that "one or more pairs" are identifiable from each other. The claim does not establish with reasonable certainty whether the identification relationship is device-to-device within each pair or pair-to-pair among multiple pairs. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 21 are not reasonably certain, and claim 21 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration, while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c), may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-19, 23 and 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-17 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 in view of Uemura et al. (US 2014/0369659 A1), Bradley et al. (US 2021/0088729 A1), and Nielson et al. (US 2014/0219613 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Application No. 18/865,463 is a copending Fujikura Ltd. application naming Takuya Oda as inventor. Its claims 10-17 recite the same normal-type/reverse-type multicore-fiber network architecture, the same ring/line/star/tree/fully-connected/mesh network forms, and the same network-manufacturing concept now recited in the instant application, but express polarity using marker positions rather than the instant FI/FO-device coupling terminology.
With respect to claim 13, claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 13, An optical communication network comprising:
nodes; and
a domain in which all of transmission paths that connect the nodes within the domain are constituted by multi-core fiber connected bodies,
each of which comprises one or more multi-core fibers and one or more pairs of Fan-In/Fan-Out (FI/FO) devices respectively connected to ends of a corresponding one of the one or more multi-core fibers, wherein
each pair ... has a reversely symmetrical coupling structure,
each of the one or more pairs of FI/FO devices comprises ports identifiable from each other and coupled with respective cores of the one or more multi-core fibers.
As per claim 10, An optical communication network comprising:
three or more nodes; and
a domain in which each of transmission paths, that connects two of the three or more nodes within the domain, is constituted by a multi-core fiber or a multi-core fiber connected body
in which positions of markers on both end surfaces of the multi-core fiber connected body are swapped.
The features of claim 13 of the current application that are not expressly recited in claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 are the FI/FO-device implementation of the multi-core fiber connected body, the reversely symmetrical coupling relationship of the paired FI/FO devices, and the recitation that the FI/FO ports are identifiable from each other and coupled with respective MCF cores. Reference claim 10 expressly recites, as one of its alternatives, that a transmission path is constituted by a multi-core fiber connected body in which the positions of markers on both end surfaces are swapped. Selecting that expressly recited connected-body alternative for the transmission paths does not itself provide a patentable distinction; the remaining differences concern how that known normal-type polarity is physically implemented and identified at the MCF ends.
However, in analogous art, Uemura teaches that a fan-in/fan-out device is used as an input/output device for a multicore fiber and expressly shows a multicore fiber with fan-in/fan-out devices connected to each end, with the individual single-core fibers connected to respective MCF cores [Uemura, ¶¶[0049]-[0052], FIGS. 1-2].
Bradley likewise teaches fanouts that transition corresponding MCF cores into single-core fibers and expressly states that the breakout fibers are “identified, arranged, and paired” in accordance with the desired routing scheme [Bradley, ¶¶[0011]-[0013], [0043]-[0044], Figs. 5-6].
Nielson further teaches arranging single-core fibers in a connector pattern that matches the MCF core pattern and teaches an opposite connector presenting a mirror-image core pattern [Nielson, ¶¶[0046], [0052], [0057]-[0059], [0077], FIGS. 5-6 and 9].
Thus, after selecting the connected-body alternative expressly recited by reference claim 10, implementing the marker-swapped, normal-type body with a conventional pair of FI/FO devices and an intentionally selected mirror-image endpoint port pattern would have been no more than the predictable use of known MCF interface structures to preserve the predetermined normal-type routing while coupling each MCF core to a separately identifiable single-core path.
Accordingly, the network framework and normal-type connected-body alternative are expressly recited by reference claim 10, and the remaining FI/FO termination, endpoint-pattern, and port-identification details would have been obvious from the conventional FI/FO implementations taught by Uemura, Bradley, and Nielson.
The proposed combination does not alter the function of the claimed network: the reference claim still uses a uniform normal-type MCF polarity for all paths, while the added FI/FO devices merely provide the established interface between MCF cores and node-side single-core ports.
The result would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, claim 13 is not patentably distinct from claim 10 of Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463.
With respect to claim 14, claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 14, The optical communication network according to claim 13, wherein
the nodes and the transmission paths constitute a ring-type network,
and directions of the one or more multi-core fibers or the multi-core fiber connected bodies constituting the transmission paths are aligned
such that coupling structures of those of the one or more pairs of FI/FO devices disposed on a downstream side of a flow following the ring-type network clockwise coincide.
As per claim 11, The optical communication network according to claim 10, wherein
the three or more nodes and the transmission paths constitute a ring-type network,
each MCF/connected body has a downstream end surface located on a downstream side of a flow following the ring-type network clockwise, and the directions ... are aligned
such that the marker position on one downstream end surface is not swapped with the marker position on each other downstream end surface.
As discussed above for claim 13, it would have been obvious to implement the marker-polarity connected bodies of reference claim 10 with the conventional FI/FO interfaces taught by Uemura, Bradley, and Nielson.
Reference claim 11 already requires the same ring topology, the same clockwise downstream relationship, and alignment of the transmission-path directions so that the downstream polarity is common from path to path.
Once the reference marker polarity is implemented by a fixed FI/FO port-to-core pattern, a person of ordinary skill would predictably maintain the same downstream FI/FO coupling orientation from path to path in order to implement the common downstream polarity expressly required by reference claim 11.
Therefore, requiring the downstream FI/FO coupling structures to “coincide” is a predictable expression of the same alignment rule and does not patentably distinguish claim 14 from reference claim 11.
With respect to claim 15, claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 15, The optical communication network according to claim 13, wherein
the nodes and the transmission paths constitute a line-type network,
directions ... are aligned
such that coupling structures of the downstream FI/FO devices following the line-type network from a first end to a second end coincide.
As per claim 12, The optical communication network according to claim 10, wherein
the three or more nodes and the transmission paths constitute a line-type network,
directions ... are aligned
such that the marker position on one downstream end surface is not swapped with the marker position on each other downstream end surface along the flow from one end to the other end.
Reference claim 12 recites the same line-type network and the same end-to-end downstream orientation requirement. For the reasons explained for claims 13 and 14, replacing the marker-based endpoint expression with the conventional FI/FO port-to-core implementation would have predictably caused the downstream FI/FO coupling structures to share the same orientation.
Thus claim 15 is not patentably distinct from reference claim 12 when claim 12 is considered with the conventional FI/FO teachings of Uemura, Bradley, and Nielson.
With respect to claim 16, claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 16, The optical communication network according to claim 13, wherein
the nodes and the transmission paths constitute a star-type network,
directions ... are aligned
such that coupling structures of FI/FO devices disposed on downstream sides of flows away from a center node of the star-type network coincide.
As per claim 13, The optical communication network according to claim 10, wherein
the three or more nodes and the transmission paths constitute a star-type network,
each path has a downstream end surface located on a downstream side of a flow away from a center node, and directions ... are aligned
such that the downstream marker positions are not swapped relative to each other.
Reference claim 13 already requires the same star-type network, center node, outward flows, and uniform downstream polarity. Applying the conventional FI/FO implementation discussed above merely expresses that common polarity by the corresponding FI/FO coupling pattern. The conversion from a marker-defined endpoint orientation to a FI/FO port-pattern orientation would have been a predictable implementation choice.
Claim 16 therefore is not patentably distinct from reference claim 13.
With respect to claim 17, claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 17, The optical communication network according to claim 13, wherein
the nodes and the transmission paths constitute a tree-type network,
directions ... are aligned
such that coupling structures of FI/FO devices disposed on a downstream side of a flow away from a root of the tree-type network coincide.
As per claim 14, The optical communication network according to claim 10, wherein
the three or more nodes and the transmission paths constitute a tree-type network,
each path has a downstream end surface located on a downstream side of a flow away from a root, and directions ... are aligned
such that the downstream marker positions are not swapped relative to each other.
Reference claim 14 already requires the same tree topology, the same root, the same outward downstream flow, and uniform downstream polarity. The recitation in claim 17 that downstream FI/FO coupling structures coincide is the corresponding FI/FO implementation of that same orientation rule. In view of the FI/FO and core-pattern teachings of Uemura, Bradley, and Nielson, claim 17 would have been obvious over reference claim 14 and therefore is not patentably distinct.
With respect to claim 18, claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 18, The optical communication network according to claim 13, wherein
the nodes and the transmission paths constitute a fully connected-type network or a mesh-type network.
As per claim 15, The optical communication network according to claim 10, wherein
the three or more nodes and the transmission paths constitute a fully connected-type network or a mesh-type network.
The topology limitation of instant claim 18 is substantively the same as reference claim 15. The only remaining difference is the FI/FO implementation inherited from instant claim 13, which is supplied by the secondary references for the reasons set forth above.
Accordingly, claim 18 is not patentably distinct from reference claim 15.
With respect to claim 19, claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 19, An optical communication network comprising:
nodes; and
a domain in which all of transmission paths that connect the nodes within the domain are constituted by multi-core fiber connected bodies,
each body comprising one or more MCFs and one or more pairs of FI/FO devices connected to corresponding ends,
wherein each pair has a congruent coupling structure and comprises identifiable ports coupled with respective MCF cores.
As per claim 16, An optical communication network comprising:
three or more nodes; and
a domain in which each transmission path connecting two of the three or more nodes is constituted by a multi-core fiber connected body
in which positions of markers on both end surfaces of the multi-core fiber connected body are not swapped.
The reference application identifies the marker-not-swapped arrangement of claim 16 as the reverse-type/cross-connected polarity. Uemura teaches providing the same FI/FO device structure at the two ends of an MCF [Uemura, ¶¶[0049]-[0052], FIGS. 1-2], and Bradley teaches identified, correctly arranged breakout fibers coupled to corresponding MCF cores [Bradley ¶¶[0043]-[0044]].
Nielson teaches selecting and arranging endpoint single-core-fiber patterns to mate with desired MCF core patterns [Nielson, ¶¶[0046], [0052], [0057]-[0059], [0077]].
It would therefore have been obvious to implement the marker-not-swapped reverse-type connected body of reference claim 16 with paired FI/FO devices whose endpoint port-to-core patterns are selected to be the same rather than mirrored, as taught by Nielson.
When that same-pattern option is applied to the paired FI/FO devices of Uemura, the two end devices have congruent coupling arrangements while maintaining the known reverse/cross routing convention.
This is a predictable use of known FI/FO structures according to their established function.
Accordingly, instant claim 19 is not patentably distinct from reference claim 16.
With respect to claims 23 and 24, claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 has similar limitations as underlined below:
Instant application
Co Pending Application No. 18/865,463
As per claim 23, A method for manufacturing the optical communication network according to claim 13, comprising:
selecting the multi-core fiber connected bodies as all of the transmission paths connecting the nodes in the domain.
As per claim 24, A method for manufacturing the optical communication network according to claim 19, comprising:
selecting the multi-core fiber connected bodies as all of the transmission paths connecting the nodes in the domain.
As per claim 17, A method for manufacturing an optical communication network including three or more nodes, comprising:
creating each of transmission paths, that connects two of the three or more nodes within a domain, with a multi-core fiber or a multi-core fiber connected body
in which positions of markers on both end surfaces of the multi-core fiber connected body are either swapped or not swapped.
Reference claim 17 expressly covers manufacturing a network by creating each transmission path within the domain using a multi-core fiber or a multi-core fiber connected body having either the normal/swapped polarity or the reverse/not-swapped polarity. The connected-body alternatives are therefore expressly present in the reference claim itself.
Instant claims 23 and 24 select the corresponding FI/FO-implemented connected bodies as all of those transmission paths. Selecting the expressly claimed connected-body alternative for all paths, and implementing that alternative with conventional FI/FO terminations, is a predictable species selection rather than a patentably distinct manufacturing concept.
For the reasons set forth for claims 13 and 19, Uemura, Bradley, and Nielson render the FI/FO implementation of those two polarity alternatives obvious. Expressing the implementation step as “selecting” the connected bodies rather than “creating each ... path with” those bodies does not produce a different technical result; both recitations require using the selected polarity-specific connected bodies for all paths in the domain.
Therefore, claims 23 and 24 are not patentably distinct from reference claim 17.
Accordingly, claims 13-19, 23 and 24 are provisionally rejected for nonstatutory double patenting over claims 10-17 of copending Application No. 18/865,463 in view of Uemura, Bradley, and Nielson. The claimed differences amount to the use of known FI/FO interface structures and known endpoint core-pattern arrangements to implement the same normal-type/reverse-type multicore-fiber network polarities and the same network topologies already claimed in the copending application. The combination would have yielded predictable results and does not provide a patentable distinction.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, and as set forth in MPEP 2141 (R-01.2024), II, the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present.
The presently applied references were publicly available before the June 8, 2022 foreign-priority date asserted for the instant application. The rejections below identify the teachings relied upon and the reason a person of ordinary skill in the optical-fiber communication art would have combined those teachings.
Claims 13, 14, 19, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (US20180341060A1) in view of Uemura et al., Nielson et al., and Bradley et al.
Claim 13
As per claim 13, the claim requires an optical communication network having nodes and a domain in which all transmission paths connecting the nodes within the domain are constituted by multi-core-fiber connected bodies.
Oda expressly teaches a multi-node optical communication system in which the nodes are interconnected by multicore fibers, and expressly identifies the physical topology as a one-way ring. Oda states: “First, an example of a communication system to which a connector according to an embodiment of the present invention can be applied and which uses a multi-core fiber (MCF) will be described. FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a configuration example of a communication system 100 which uses MCFs according to the present invention. The communication system 100 includes a transceiving node 110 and n Add/Drop nodes 120, n being an integer of 1 or more.” [Oda, ¶ [0056], FIG. 1].
Oda states: “Nodes are connected together by multi-core fibers (MCFs) 200-1 to 200-4. The communication system 100 has a physical topology of a single-system one-way ring configuration in which the nodes are connected together by the MCFs 200-1 to 200-4. The transceiving node 110 and the Add/Drop node 120-1 are connected together by the MCF 200-1. The Add/Drop node 120-1 and the Add/Drop node 120-2 are connected together by the MCF 200-2. The Add/Drop node 120-2 and the Add/Drop node 120-3 are connected together by the MCF 200-3. The Add/Drop node 120-3 and the transceiving node 110 are connected together by the MCF 200-4. Each of the MCFs 200-1 to 200-4 of the communication system 100 has three cores 201, 202, and 203.” [Oda, ¶ [0057], FIG. 1].
Thus, the entirety of Oda's illustrated ring can reasonably be treated as the claimed domain: every node-to-node transmission link within that domain is an MCF link.
Oda therefore supplies the network, nodes, domain, and all-transmission-path MCF framework of claim 13.
Claim 13 further requires one or more pairs of Fan-In/Fan-Out (FI/FO) devices respectively connected to the ends of a corresponding multicore fiber.
Oda expressly recognizes FI/FO devices as the known input/output structures for the respective MCF cores.
Oda states: “The fan-in device is a device which is connected to each of the cores in a multi-core fiber and which adds optical signals to the cores. The fan-out device is a device which is connected to each of the cores in a multi-core fiber and which drops each of optical signals propagating through the cores. Since the only difference between the devices is that the propagating directions of optical signals are different, input and output of optical signals to and from a multi-core fiber may be performed using any one of the fan-in device and the fan-out device. Moreover, adding of optical signals addressed to a multi-core fiber and dropping of optical signals from the multi-core fiber may be performed simultaneously using one device.” [Oda, ¶ [0061]].
Oda states: “The connector 150 includes a fan-in/fan-out portion including a plurality of small-diameter single-mode fibers (SMFs) and a plurality of SMFs. As shown in FIG. 2A, the connector 150 includes a small-diameter SMF for each of the cores of a connection target MCF 200. One set of ends of the plurality of small-diameter SMFs are provided at positions facing the cores of the MCF 200. Moreover, the other set of ends of the plurality of small-diameter SMFs are provided at positions facing one set of ends of the SMFs. Each of the small-diameter SMFs connects the SMF and the core of the MCF 200.” [Oda, ¶ [0069], FIGS. 2A-2B].
Although Oda supplies the network and recognizes FI/FO structures, it does not in the passages above expressly recite the claimed pair of FI/FO devices disposed at the two opposite ends of the same MCF. That implementation was expressly conventional in the same multicore-fiber art, as shown by Uemura.
Uemura states: “In FIG. 1, an input/output device using an exemplary embodiment of a fan-in/fan-out device for multicore fiber ... is shown.” [Uemura, ¶ [0049], FIG. 1].
Uemura states: “The input/output device shown here includes a multicore fiber 1, devices 10 each of which is connected to an end 1c of the multicore fiber 1, and external optical fibers 3 each of which is connected to the device 10.” [Uemura, ¶ [0050], FIG. 1].
Uemura states: “The device 10 relays and connects the multicore fiber 1 and the external optical fibers 3.” [Uemura, ¶ [0051]].
Uemura states: “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the device 10 includes a plurality of single-core fibers 2 and a holding portion 8 which holds the plurality of single-core fibers 2 as a bundle.” [Uemura, ¶ [0052], FIGS. 1-2].
Uemura therefore expressly supplies the claimed two-ended connected-body implementation: an MCF with a FI/FO device at each end and single-core fibers forming the ports connected to the respective MCF cores.
Claim 13 further requires that each FI/FO pair has a reversely symmetrical coupling structure.
Nielson expressly teaches arranging and clocking the single-core fibers at opposing MCF connector/fanout ends to provide direct or cross connection, and expressly identifies mirror-image patterns as a selectable arrangement.
Nielson states: “Arranging the first ends of the plurality of single core fibers into a desired ordering relative to the ferrule. The fibers can be rotated and clocked within the ferrule to a keying feature on the ferrule, ferrule barrel or connector housing. The arranging is performed prior to any epoxy curing and creates the desired pattern to allow for direct connection or cross connection at the ferrule end surface. The fibers may also be clocked and cured randomly in the ferrule, and then the ferrule is later oriented in a connector, so as to clock the ferrule to clocking features of the connector. The pattern of the single-core fibers can be mirror images, as viewed at the end surfaces of ferrule assemblies 126 and 128 in FIG. 9 or may be the same patterns, i.e., not mirror images. Hence, it is possible to reorder the single-core fibers in the satellite positions along the length of the jumper cable, which may prove useful to provide correct routing of signals between transmitters and receivers within single cords or when concatenating cords and/or cables.” [Nielson, ¶ [0077], FIG. 9].
Nielson does not use applicant's phrase "reversely symmetrical coupling structure," but it expressly teaches the endpoint-pattern selection relied upon here: the opposed single-core-fiber patterns may be deliberately made mirror images to obtain the desired direct/cross routing. When that mirror-image option is applied to Uemura's paired FI/FO terminations at the two ends of the MCF, it provides the reversed/mirrored endpoint coupling arrangement required by claim 13.
Finally, claim 13 requires ports identifiable from each other and coupled with respective MCF cores.
Bradley expressly teaches fanouts that transition MCF core pairs into corresponding pairs of single-core fibers and connects those fibers to separately identified Tx/Rx ports with assigned path numbers.
Bradley states: “It will therefore be appreciated that a single multicore fiber which contains at least three pairs of cores, for example, the six-core MCF 10 in FIG. 1A, has the capacity to link the transceivers at the two equipment racks A and B as described above, provided suitable breakout arrangements (or fanouts) are used to transition the pairs of cores exposed on a connector at an end of each MCF 10, into corresponding pairs of single core fibers for connection to the proper Tx N/Rx N ports of the transceivers.” [Bradley, ¶ [0011], FIGS. 1A-2].
Bradley states: “Assume as shown in FIG. 2 that two lengths of the six-core MCF 10 in FIG. 1A are to be connected to one another through identical connectors 14 that mate to one another through a conventional adapter. In order to define the six routing paths needed to link the first, the second, and the third transceivers at the equipment racks with one another, each MCF 10 is transitioned at an end opposite its connector 14 through a conventional fanout 16 into three pairs of single core fibers 18, 20, and 22.” [Bradley, ¶ [0012], FIG. 2].
Bradley states: “In the fanout 16, the cores of fiber pair 18 are connected to core ##1 and 2 of the MCF 10, the cores of fiber pair 20 are connected to core ##3 and 4, and the cores of fiber pair 22 are connected to core ##5 and 6. Also assume that the fiber pairs 18, 20, 22 are connected via conventional, e.g., duplex LC connectors 24, to corresponding ports Tx N/Rx N of transceiver modules 26, and that the following routing paths are assigned by number to the ports as follows.” [Bradley, ¶ [0013], FIG. 2].
Bradley further states: “Note that the single core fibers in the breakouts 216 are identified, arranged, and paired in accordance with the desired routing scheme. Basically, once the multicore fibers 210 are oriented relative to the key planes, the single-core fibers of the breakouts 216 also have to be identified and arranged correctly.” [Bradley, ¶ [0044], FIGS. 5-6].
Bradley therefore supplies express identification of the individual fanout-side ports by Tx/Rx designation and routing-path number, while tying each identified pair of ports to specific MCF cores.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings because the references address complementary portions of the same practical multicore-fiber link. Oda teaches the network-level reason to use MCF links between nodes and itself relies on fan-in/fan-out structures to access individual MCF cores.
Uemura teaches the conventional physical implementation of an MCF link with FI/FO devices at the two ends.
Nielson teaches how the single-core-fiber ordering at opposed MCF connector/fanout ends is deliberately clocked and selected as mirror-image or same-pattern ordering to obtain correct direct/cross routing.
Bradley teaches the corresponding identification of those breakout fibers/ports so that the correct core pair reaches the intended Tx/Rx port.
A skilled artisan implementing Oda's MCF ring would have had an express engineering reason to use these known FI/FO termination, polarity, and identification techniques: without controlled fanout ordering and identified ports, the MCF core-to-port routing could be wrong and transmitted data could be delivered to the wrong receiver.
The modification would not change the operating principle of Oda's communication system. Each node-to-node link would remain an MCF transmission path, but each link would be terminated using the known FI/FO structures of Uemura; the opposed FI/FO port patterns would be clocked in the known mirror-image relationship of Nielson; and the single-core port fibers would be identified as taught by Bradley.
The predictable result is exactly the claimed connected-body network: all node-to-node paths in the selected domain are MCF connected bodies having paired FI/FO devices, reversed/mirror coupling structure, and identifiable ports coupled to the respective MCF cores.
Therefore, claim 13 would have been obvious.
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 13 are taught by the Oda, Uemura, Nielson and Bradley combination for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 14 further requires that the nodes and transmission paths constitute a ring-type network and that the directions of the MCFs/connected bodies are aligned so that the coupling structures of the downstream FI/FO devices following the ring clockwise coincide.
However, within analogous art, Oda states: “Nodes are connected together by multi-core fibers (MCFs) 200-1 to 200-4. The communication system 100 has a physical topology of a single-system one-way ring configuration in which the nodes are connected together by the MCFs 200-1 to 200-4.” [Oda, ¶ [0057], FIG. 1].
Nielson states: “The fibers can be rotated and clocked within the ferrule to a keying feature on the ferrule, ferrule barrel or connector housing. The arranging is performed prior to any epoxy curing and creates the desired pattern to allow for direct connection or cross connection at the ferrule end surface. ... The pattern of the single-core fibers can be mirror images ... or may be the same patterns, i.e., not mirror images.” [Nielson, ¶ [0077], FIG. 9].
Oda therefore expressly supplies the claimed ring. Nielson expressly supplies the known orientation/clocking control by which connector/fanout coupling patterns are intentionally made the same or mirrored.
In the modified Oda ring, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that using a common downstream orientation at each link is the straightforward way to maintain a consistent core-to-port convention as traffic proceeds around the ring. Such consistent clocking avoids having alternating link polarities force different port routing rules at successive nodes.
One of ordinary skill would therefore have been motivated to orient each downstream FI/FO device in the same clocked coupling configuration while preserving the mirror-image relationship across each individual connected body. This is no more than applying Nielson's known clocking/keying technique repeatedly to the series of MCF links in Oda's expressly disclosed one-way ring.
The expected result is that the downstream coupling structures coincide along the clockwise flow, exactly as recited. Therefore claim 14 would have been obvious.
Claim 19
Claim 19 parallels claim 13 but requires the opposite coupling relationship: each pair of FI/FO devices has a congruent coupling structure. The same references teach the network, MCF/FI-FO connected-body structure, and identifiable ports.
Nielson expressly teaches the same-pattern, non-mirror-image alternative corresponding to the claimed congruent coupling relationship.
Oda states: “Nodes are connected together by multi-core fibers (MCFs) 200-1 to 200-4. The communication system 100 has a physical topology of a single-system one-way ring configuration in which the nodes are connected together by the MCFs 200-1 to 200-4.” [Oda, ¶ [0057], FIG. 1].
Uemura states: “The input/output device shown here includes a multicore fiber 1, devices 10 each of which is connected to an end 1c of the multicore fiber 1, and external optical fibers 3 each of which is connected to the device 10.” [Uemura, ¶ [0050], FIG. 1].
Nielson states: “The pattern of the single-core fibers can be mirror images, as viewed at the end surfaces of ferrule assemblies 126 and 128 in FIG. 9 or may be the same patterns, i.e., not mirror images. Hence, it is possible to reorder the single-core fibers in the satellite positions along the length of the jumper cable, which may prove useful to provide correct routing of signals between transmitters and receivers within single cords or when concatenating cords and/or cables.” [Nielson, ¶ [0077], FIG. 9].
Bradley states: “In the fanout 16, the cores of fiber pair 18 are connected to core ##1 and 2 of the MCF 10, the cores of fiber pair 20 are connected to core ##3 and 4, and the cores of fiber pair 22 are connected to core ##5 and 6. Also assume that the fiber pairs 18, 20, 22 are connected via conventional, e.g., duplex LC connectors 24, to corresponding ports Tx N/Rx N of transceiver modules 26, and that the following routing paths are assigned by number to the ports as follows.” [Bradley, ¶ [0013], FIG. 2].
Nielson does not use applicant's word "congruent," but its expressly disclosed same-pattern, non-mirror-image option teaches the relevant endpoint relationship: the single-core-fiber pattern at one opposed fanout/connector end is intentionally the same as the pattern at the other end.
Applying Nielson's same-pattern option to the paired FI/FO devices of Uemura would have produced FI/FO devices having the same endpoint port-to-core coupling arrangement at both ends, i.e., the congruent coupling relationship recited in claim 19.
Bradley supplies the separately identifiable Tx/Rx port-to-core mapping, and Oda supplies the all-MCF network domain.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to choose Nielson's same-pattern alternative where the desired transmitter/receiver routing convention called for non-mirrored end patterns.
Nielson expressly identifies both mirror and same patterns as design options used to obtain correct routing.
Thus, selecting the same-pattern option in the known paired-FI/FO MCF connected body is a predictable polarity choice, not a change in principle.
Applying that known link construction to every Oda node-to-node path yields the claimed domain of congruent-coupling connected bodies. Therefore claim 19 would have been obvious.
Claim 23
With respect to claim 23, the claim incorporates the entire network of claim 13 and further recites a method for manufacturing that network by selecting the multi-core fiber connected bodies as all of the transmission paths connecting the nodes in the domain. All structural limitations of claim 13 are taught by the Oda, Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley combination for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 23 further requires the affirmative selection of those connected bodies as all transmission paths in the domain.
Oda states: “Nodes are connected together by multi-core fibers (MCFs) 200-1 to 200-4. ... The transceiving node 110 and the Add/Drop node 120-1 are connected together by the MCF 200-1. The Add/Drop node 120-1 and the Add/Drop node 120-2 are connected together by the MCF 200-2. The Add/Drop node 120-2 and the Add/Drop node 120-3 are connected together by the MCF 200-3. The Add/Drop node 120-3 and the transceiving node 110 are connected together by the MCF 200-4.” [Oda, ¶ [0057], FIG. 1].
Uemura states: “The input/output device shown here includes a multicore fiber 1, devices 10 each of which is connected to an end 1c of the multicore fiber 1, and external optical fibers 3 each of which is connected to the device 10.” [Uemura, ¶ [0050], FIG. 1].
The manufacturing step of claim 23 does not require a different technical mechanism from the obvious apparatus of claim 13; it requires selecting the connected bodies to serve as every path.
Oda expressly constructs the network by using MCF links for every adjacent node-to-node connection. Once Uemura's known paired-FI/FO MCF connected body is adopted as the implementation of each Oda MCF link, constructing the network necessarily entails selecting that known connected body for each transmission path.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the network in this manner to obtain uniform connection polarity and port-management rules throughout the selected domain.
Uniform use of the same class of connected body reduces installation ambiguity, simplifies routing documentation, and gives the predictable result that every path has the same mirror/reverse polarity convention. This is the ordinary method of making the obvious network structure of claim 13 from the known components.
Therefore claim 23 would have been obvious.
Claim 24
With respect to claim 24, the claim incorporates the entire network of claim 19 and adds the method step of selecting the multi-core fiber connected bodies as all transmission paths connecting the nodes in the domain. The Oda/Uemura/Nielson/Bradley combination teaches the claim-19 network for the reasons above.
All structural limitations of claim 19 are taught by Oda, Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 24 further requires selecting the multi-core fiber connected bodies as all of the transmission paths connecting the nodes in the domain.
Oda states: “The transceiving node 110 and the Add/Drop node 120-1 are connected together by the MCF 200-1. The Add/Drop node 120-1 and the Add/Drop node 120-2 are connected together by the MCF 200-2. The Add/Drop node 120-2 and the Add/Drop node 120-3 are connected together by the MCF 200-3. The Add/Drop node 120-3 and the transceiving node 110 are connected together by the MCF 200-4.” [Oda, ¶ [0057]].
When the known Uemura connected body using the Nielson same-pattern coupling option is selected as the implementation of Oda's MCF link, forming the network necessarily requires selecting that connected body for the individual transmission paths. Selecting the same link type throughout the domain also provides the predictable benefit of a uniform polarity/port convention across the network. The claimed manufacturing step therefore amounts to the ordinary selection and use of the known components required to construct the otherwise obvious claim-19 network.
Therefore claim 24 would have been obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. in view of Uemura et al., Nielson et al., and Bradley et al., and further in view of Sugawara et al. (US20140241712A1).
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 13 are taught by Oda, Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley as discussed above, except wherein claim 15 further requires a line-type network and alignment of the MCF/connected-body directions so that the downstream FI/FO coupling structures coincide from a first end to a second end of the line network.
However, within analogous art, Sugawara expressly teaches a multicore-fiber optical transmission system in a linear network configuration and expressly contrasts that linear configuration with ring and mesh MCF networks.
Sugawara states: “The drawing only shows the linear network configuration. The concept of the invention for allocation of the center core of the MCF for the supervisory control signal transmission may be applied to the redundant system of the ring-like network shown in FIG. 10, or the mesh network shown in FIG. 11.” [Sugawara, ¶ [0066], FIGS. 9-11].
Nielson states: “The fibers can be rotated and clocked within the ferrule to a keying feature on the ferrule, ferrule barrel or connector housing. ... The pattern of the single-core fibers can be mirror images ... or may be the same patterns, i.e., not mirror images.” [Nielson, ¶ [0077]].
Sugawara therefore supplies the specific line/linear MCF network form that Oda does not expressly emphasize.
Nielson supplies the physical clocking technique needed to establish a consistent coupling orientation at each successive link.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known line topology of Sugawara to the Oda/Uemura/Nielson/Bradley connected-body architecture because ring, line, and mesh are ordinary alternative optical-network topologies selected according to deployment geometry.
In a line network, aligning every downstream FI/FO coupling structure to the same clocked pattern is the predictable way to preserve a common port/core ordering from the first node to the second end of the line. The modification merely applies known MCF-connected-body termination and clocking to a known linear MCF network and would produce no unexpected result.
Therefore claim 15 would have been obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. in view of Uemura et al., Nielson et al., and Bradley et al., and further in view of Beranek et al. (US20160365941A1).
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 13 are taught by Oda, Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley, except wherein claim 16 further requires that the nodes/transmission paths form a star-type network and that the connected bodies be oriented so that coupling structures of downstream FI/FO devices on flows away from the center node coincide.
However, within analogous art, Beranek expressly teaches a fiber-optic star network and defines its center-node relationship.
Beranek states: “The network can be mesh network (FIG. 4a), a bus network (FIG. 4b), a star network (FIG. 4c), a ring network (FIG. 4d), or a partially connected mesh (FIG. 4e).” [Beranek, ¶ [0021], FIGS. 4A-4E].
Beranek states: “In its simplest form, as shown in FIG. 4c, a star network has one central switch, hub or computer, which acts as a conduit to transmit messages. It has a central node 105, to which all other nodes 100 are connected; this central node 105 provides a common connection point for all nodes 100 through a hub. In star topology, every node 100 ... is connected to a central node 105 called a hub or switch.” [Beranek, ¶ [0021], FIG. 4C].
Nielson states: “The fibers can be rotated and clocked within the ferrule to a keying feature ... The pattern of the single-core fibers can be mirror images ... or may be the same patterns, i.e., not mirror images.” [Nielson, ¶ [0077]].
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known star topology of Beranek for the ring topology used in Oda when a centralized hub/node architecture was desired.
That substitution changes only the arrangement of otherwise known optical links. Once the known MCF connected bodies are used as the star spokes, orienting each spoke so that its outward/downstream FI/FO device uses the same clocked coupling pattern is a routine application of Nielson's orientation teaching.
The reason is the same on every spoke: common downstream orientation preserves the same port/core convention at each peripheral node, reducing connection errors and simplifying installation. The result is predictable and is exactly the star/downstream-coincident arrangement recited in claim 16.
Therefore claim 16 would have been obvious.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. in view of Uemura et al., Nielson et al., and Bradley et al., and further in view of Renard et al. (US20040196664A1) and Pavelchek (US20060291864A1).
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 13 are taught by Oda, Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley, except wherein claim 17 additionally requires a tree-type network, a root, and alignment such that coupling structures of downstream FI/FO devices on flows away from the root coincide.
However, within analogous art, Renard expressly teaches an optical-fiber tree topology of PON type.
Renard states: “FIG. 1 is a diagram of the architecture of a tree topology network of PON type incorporating a system of the invention.” [Renard, ¶ [0047], FIG. 1].
Renard states: “FIG. 1 schematically shows the architecture of a tree network 1 of PON type (Passive Optical Network) comprising two systems 10 and 10' according to the invention.” [Renard, ¶ [0056], FIG. 1].
Renard states: “Tree network 1 of PON type is a point-to-multipoint system enabling bi-directional data exchange between a central office 2 and subscriber terminals 9 via optic fibres 11 over a distance of the order of twenty kilometres.” [Renard, ¶ [0066], FIG. 1].
Pavelchek independently confirms that a branching tree is a known optical-network geometry and expressly designates a root node in the optical communications network.
Pavelchek states: “Other network structures or geometries can be implemented. For example, a branching tree network structure is also possible.” [Pavelchek, ¶ [0034]].
Pavelchek states: “To accomplish this objective, at least one of the nodes 108 is designated as a root node 108A. The root node 108A includes additional functionality to interface the communication network 100 to a provider network 116 via another communication link 112.” [Pavelchek, ¶ [0036]].
Nielson states: “The fibers can be rotated and clocked within the ferrule to a keying feature ... The pattern of the single-core fibers can be mirror images ... or may be the same patterns, i.e., not mirror images.” [Nielson, ¶ [0077]].
Renard supplies the fiber-optic tree form, while Pavelchek supplies the ordinary root-node terminology and branching-tree organization in optical communications. These teachings are analogous to Oda because each concerns the arrangement of multiple optical communication links among nodes.
A skilled artisan would have selected a tree rather than a ring when hierarchical point-to-multipoint distribution was desired. Doing so requires no change in the MCF connected-body function; it only changes the topology in which the links are deployed.
Once the tree links are implemented with the Uemura/Nielson connected bodies, orienting the connected bodies so that every device on the downstream side of traffic flowing away from the root uses the same clocked coupling structure is an expected engineering choice. It provides a uniform outward-facing port/core convention at each branch, avoids link-by-link polarity ambiguity, and is directly enabled by Nielson's keying/clocking teaching. Therefore claim 17 would have been obvious.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. in view of Uemura et al., Nielson et al., and Bradley et al., and further in view of Sugawara et al.
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 13 are taught by Oda, Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley, except wherein claim 18 further requires that the nodes and transmission paths constitute a fully connected-type network or a mesh-type network. Because the claim is written in the alternative, a teaching of a mesh-type network is sufficient to satisfy this additional limitation.
However, within analogous art, Sugawara states: “The concept of the invention ... may be applied to the redundant system of the ring-like network shown in FIG. 10, or the mesh network shown in FIG. 11.” [Sugawara, ¶ [0066], FIGS. 10-11].
Sugawara states: “FIG. 11 illustrates a structure having five optical switching devices connected in a mesh. The respective optical switching devices are connected through the large-capacity optical fibers 100 to 106 for the active signal transmission, and the large-capacity optical fibers 200 to 206 for the standby signal transmission.” [Sugawara, ¶ [0067], FIG. 11].
Sugawara therefore expressly teaches a mesh optical network whose inter-node links are multicore-fiber transmission paths.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ that known mesh topology with the connected-body implementation of claim 13 when network redundancy and multiple alternative routes were desired. Sugawara itself explains that ring and mesh networks increase the number of bypass channels upon failure, providing an express reliability reason for the topology.
The modification merely places the known MCF/FI-FO links of the base combination into a known mesh arrangement, with predictable network-connectivity and redundancy benefits.
Therefore claim 18 would have been obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. in view of Nielson et al. and Bradley et al.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to the multi-core-fiber connected body itself. For purposes of prior-art examination only, and without withdrawing the above claim objection, the phrase “a congruent coupling structures” is interpreted as “a congruent coupling structure,” consistent with claim 19 and the written description. Claim 20 therefore requires one or more MCFs, one or more pairs of FI/FO devices respectively connected to the ends of a corresponding MCF, an end-coupling relationship that is either reversely symmetrical or congruent, and identifiable FI/FO ports coupled with respective MCF cores. Because the coupling alternatives are disjunctive, prior art need only render obvious one alternative; the cited combination in fact teaches both.
Uemura states: “The input/output device shown here includes a multicore fiber 1, devices 10 each of which is connected to an end 1c of the multicore fiber 1, and external optical fibers 3 each of which is connected to the device 10.” [Uemura, ¶ [0050], FIG. 1].
Uemura states: “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the device 10 includes a plurality of single-core fibers 2 and a holding portion 8 which holds the plurality of single-core fibers 2 as a bundle.” [Uemura, ¶ [0052]].
Uemura states: “The device 10 is capable of injecting light into the core 1a of the multicore fiber 1 from the external optical fibers 3 via the single-core fibers 2 or injecting light into the external optical fibers 3 from the cores 1a of the multicore fiber 1 via the single-core fibers 2.” [Uemura, ¶ [0092]].
Nielson states: “The arranging is performed prior to any epoxy curing and creates the desired pattern to allow for direct connection or cross connection at the ferrule end surface. ... The pattern of the single-core fibers can be mirror images ... or may be the same patterns, i.e., not mirror images.” [Nielson, ¶ [0077]].
Bradley states: “In the fanout 16, the cores of fiber pair 18 are connected to core ##1 and 2 of the MCF 10, the cores of fiber pair 20 are connected to core ##3 and 4, and the cores of fiber pair 22 are connected to core ##5 and 6. Also assume that the fiber pairs 18, 20, 22 are connected via conventional, e.g., duplex LC connectors 24, to corresponding ports Tx N/Rx N of transceiver modules 26, and that the following routing paths are assigned by number to the ports as follows.” [Bradley, ¶ [0013]].
Bradley further states: “Note that the single core fibers in the breakouts 216 are identified, arranged, and paired in accordance with the desired routing scheme. Basically, once the multicore fibers 210 are oriented relative to the key planes, the single-core fibers of the breakouts 216 also have to be identified and arranged correctly.” [Bradley, ¶ [0044], FIGS. 5-6].
Uemura supplies the claimed MCF with FI/FO devices at both ends and the single-core port fibers coupled to the MCF cores.
Nielson expressly teaches both endpoint-pattern alternatives relied upon for claim 20: mirror-image patterns and same, non-mirror-image patterns. When those alternatives are applied to Uemura's paired FI/FO terminations, they predictably provide, respectively, the reversely symmetrical and congruent coupling arrangements recited by the claim.
Bradley supplies explicit identification of the corresponding fanout ports and core paths. Thus, even though claim 20 is written in the alternative, the combination teaches both alternatives rather than merely one.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings because Uemura provides the physical FI/FO device used to access MCF cores, while Nielson and Bradley address the ordinary routing and identification problems that arise when those cores are broken out into individual single-core paths.
Nielson expressly explains that ordering/clocking is used to provide correct transmitter-to-receiver routing; Bradley expressly assigns identifiable Tx/Rx path numbers.
Combining those conventional features with Uemura's two-ended FI/FO device would predictably produce a connected body whose opposed FI/FO patterns are selected as mirror or same patterns and whose ports are individually identifiable and core-mapped. Therefore claim 20 would have been obvious.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. in view of Nielson et al. and Bradley et al., and further in view of Garner et al. (US20140205251A1).
Claim 21
For purposes of prior-art examination only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, claim 21 is interpreted consistently with substitute-specification paragraphs [0131] and [0138]-[0140] as requiring the individual FI/FO devices within a pair to be distinguishable from one another by at least one of the listed physical indicia. This construction is adopted solely to apply the prior art; the § 112(b) rejection is maintained because the claim language itself does not state that relationship with reasonable certainty.
With respect to claim 21 under the foregoing prior-art construction, all limitations of claim 20 are taught by Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley as discussed above, except that claim 21 further requires the individual FI/FO devices to be identifiable from each other using one or more listed visual identification alternatives. Because claim 21 uses “one or more of” the listed alternatives, a teaching of the color-of-single-core-fiber-surface alternative is sufficient.
However, within analogous art, Garner expressly teaches color coding the surface/coating of individual optical fibers to make the fibers identifiable to installers.
Garner states: “We have designed a color coding scheme that uses two colors, where each of the two colors constitutes approximately one half of the surface of the optical fiber coating. If a longitudinal portion of the coating is considered a hollow cylinder, then each of the two colors is a hollow hemi-cylinder. To ensure that each of the two colors is always plainly visible to an installer, the two colors are formed with a twist. The resulting optical fiber may be referred to below as a hemi-twist optical fiber. Using two colors for coding substantially increases the number of available unique color codes.” [Garner, ¶ [0005]].
Garner states: “As mentioned earlier, the use of two colors for coding the optical fibers allows a significant increase in the number of unique color codings available to identify the optical fibers.” [Garner, ¶ [0018]].
Garner directly teaches the claimed use of a color on the surface/coating of a single-core optical fiber as an identification feature.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply this known color coding to the individual single-core fibers at the Uemura/Bradley FI/FO breakout because Bradley already establishes the need to keep individual port/core paths identifiable. Color coding is a simple, durable, human-readable way to prevent core-to-port connection errors during installation and service.
The modification changes no optical function and merely adds a known visual identifier to the known single-core breakout fibers.
Therefore claim 21 would have been obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. in view of Nielson et al. and Bradley et al., and further in view of Hayashi (US20220120962A1).
Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, all limitations of claim 20 are taught by Uemura, Nielson, and Bradley, except wherein claim 22 additionally recites that each MCF is either (i) an MCF with no marker, or (ii) a specified marker/symmetry-axis MCF. Because the claim is expressly disjunctive, the prior art need only teach the no-marker branch. Hayashi expressly does so.
However, within analogous art, Hayashi teaches a four-core MCF whose core arrangement itself provides orientation symmetry and expressly states that a separate marker need not be present.
Hayashi states: “In the MCF 100 according to the present disclosure, preferably, the core arrangement including the four cores does not have rotational symmetry twice or more with the cladding center used as a symmetry axis. In this case, even without a marker, core symmetry is enabled at the time of splicing or at the time of MCF rotation alignment. In this situation, the respective centers of the four cores are preferably arranged to be line symmetric with respect to a straight line as a symmetry axis that passes through the cladding center. Accordingly, at the time of splicing another MCF to the MCF, the core alignment is enabled without the polarity at either end face of the MCF.” [Hayashi, ¶ [0058], FIG. 2].
Hayashi states: “Note that, in the example illustrated in the top part of FIG. 2, a structure serving as a marker does not have to be provided other than the cores.” [Hayashi, ¶ [0060], FIG. 2].
Hayashi states: “The MCF according to the present disclosure preferably has no structure serving as a marker other than the cores. ... Conversely, the absence of the structure serving as the marker other than the cores enables an improvement in the manufacturing performance of the MCF according to the present disclosure.” [Hayashi, ¶ [0108]].
Hayashi therefore expressly teaches the no-marker alternative recited in claim 22 and provides an express reason for it: the core geometry itself permits alignment, while omitting a separate marker improves manufacturing performance.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use Hayashi's known markerless MCF as the MCF in the otherwise obvious connected body of claim 20 because the function of the FI/FO devices and port mapping does not require a separate marker when core symmetry provides the rotational reference.
The substitution is a predictable use of a known MCF construction and yields the first expressly recited alternative of claim 22. Therefore claim 22 would have been obvious.
It is noted that any citations to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed Abdelraheem, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday.
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, David Payne, can be reached at (571) 272-3024. 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.
/MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/OMAR S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights