DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims preliminary amendment as filed on October 16, 2024. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are presented for review, with claims 1 and 12 in independent form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 29, 2025 and October 25, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
The following paragraph is not a formal claim objection, but all pending claims 1-4 and 6-21 should be carefully review for potential typos, minor informalities, and other awkward language that comes to Applicant’s attention. Appropriate correction and corresponding updates are appreciated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abedin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,946,014 B2.
Abedin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,946,014 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 6A-6D, 8A, 11, 15; corresponding text, in particular column 9, lines 20-55, column 12, lines 49-61, column 12, lines 5-25; Claims) a fan-in / fan-out device 63 (Fig. 6D) for a multicore optical fiber (shown at right in Fig. 6D; having multiple cores), comprising: a tapered assembly (overall body in Fig. 6D, shown at center as “63”) including a wide end (at left, Fig. 6D) and a narrow end 64 (at right, Fig. 6D), the narrow end having a tapered assembly end face (right end of 63 tapers smaller at this end); and a plurality of composite core optical fibers (see Fig. 8A, at 81a for the input pedestal fibers; note also Fig. 15 and step 151 which discloses these composite core optical fibers) extending from the wide end of the tapered assembly (at right near 61), each composite optical fiber including: a composite core having a first core (at 81a in Fig. 8A) with a first radius and a first index of refraction and a second core (at 82a in Fig. 8A) with a second radius and a second index of refraction different from the first index of refraction (column 9, lines 20-55; Figs. 8A-8B), and a first cladding (at 83a in Fig. 8A) surrounding the composite core and having a third radius and a third index of refraction different from both the first index of refraction and the second index of refraction (different; see Fig. 8A and column 9, lines 20-55), wherein the tapered assembly end face includes a fused cladding region (see Figs. 6A-6D as the individual fibers are fused and the taper includes the cladding region fused together, to form the TFB as in 63, column 6) comprising the first cladding of each of the composite core optical fibers (as in Fig. 6A at 62) and a plurality of composite cores embedded in the fused cladding, the plurality of composite cores comprising the composite core of each of the composite core optical fibers, and wherein the plurality of composite cores defines a “first core pattern” in the tapered assembly end face that matches as “second core pattern” of the multicore optical fiber (note that the right end in Fig. 6D matches the multi-core fiber in order for proper coupling and optical alignment), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the first, second, and third indexes of refraction are in decreasing RI’s (see Fig. 8A, 81a is greater than 82a is greater than 83a; also 81b is greater than 82b is greater than 83b), which meets all structure.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. AU 2020 / 100475 A4 (cited in the PTO-892 herein as reference N).
Yuan et al. AU 2020 / 100475 A4 teaches (ABS; Fig. 1, 2, 3; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0029] – [0035]; Claims) a fan-in / fan-out device (Fig. 2) for a multicore optical fiber 6 (shown at right in Fig. 2; having multiple cores), comprising: a tapered assembly (overall body 5 in Fig. 2) including a wide end (at left, Fig. 2) and a narrow end (at right, Fig. 2 at 5-1 cross section), the narrow end having a tapered assembly end face (right end of 5-1 tapers smaller at this end); and a plurality of composite core optical fibers (smaller fibers shown, with the pedestal refractive index configuration shown at right in Fig. 1 for the input pedestal fibers) extending from the wide end of the tapered assembly (at right near 5-1), each composite optical fiber including: a composite core having a first core (at 1-1 in Fig. 1) with a first radius and a first index of refraction and a second core (at 1-2 in Fig. 1) with a second radius and a second index of refraction different from the first index of refraction (paras [0030] – [0034]), and a first cladding (at 1-3 in Fig. 1) surrounding the composite core and having a third radius and a third index of refraction different from both the first index of refraction and the second index of refraction (different; see Fig. 1 and pedestals decreasing away from center axis), wherein the tapered assembly end face includes a fused cladding region (see Fig. 2, the claddings are all combined together by narrowing taper of the neck-down region as part of element 5) comprising the first cladding of each of the composite core optical fibers and a plurality of composite cores embedded in the fused cladding (see upper part at 1 in Fig. 1), the plurality of composite cores comprising the composite core of each of the composite core optical fibers, and wherein the plurality of composite cores defines a “first core pattern” in the tapered assembly end face that matches as “second core pattern” of the multicore optical fiber (note that the right end in Fig. 2 matches the multi-core fiber 6 in order for proper coupling and optical alignment), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the first, second, and third indexes of refraction are in decreasing RI’s (see Fig. 1, 1-1 is greater than 1-2 is greater than 1-3), which meets all structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,946,014 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,069,118 B2.
Regarding independent claim 1, Abedin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,946,014 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 6A-6D, 8A, 11, 15; corresponding text, in particular column 9, lines 20-55, column 12, lines 49-61, column 12, lines 5-25; Claims) a fan-in / fan-out device 63 (Fig. 6D) for a multicore optical fiber (shown at right in Fig. 6D; having multiple cores), comprising: a tapered assembly (overall body in Fig. 6D, shown at center as “63”) including a wide end (at left, Fig. 6D) and a narrow end 64 (at right, Fig. 6D), the narrow end having a tapered assembly end face (right end of 63 tapers smaller at this end); and a plurality of composite core optical fibers (see Fig. 8A, at 81a for the input pedestal fibers; note also Fig. 15 and step 151 which discloses these composite core optical fibers) extending from the wide end of the tapered assembly (at right near 61), each composite optical fiber including: a composite core having a first core (at 81a in Fig. 8A) with a first radius and a first index of refraction and a second core (at 82a in Fig. 8A) with a second radius and a second index of refraction different from the first index of refraction (column 9, lines 20-55; Figs. 8A-8B), and a first cladding (at 83a in Fig. 8A) surrounding the composite core and having a third radius and a third index of refraction different from both the first index of refraction and the second index of refraction (different; see Fig. 8A and column 9, lines 20-55), wherein the tapered assembly end face includes a fused cladding region (see Figs. 6A-6D as the individual fibers are fused and the taper includes the cladding region fused together, to form the TFB as in 63, column 6) comprising the first cladding of each of the composite core optical fibers (as in Fig. 6A at 62) and a plurality of composite cores embedded in the fused cladding, the plurality of composite cores comprising the composite core of each of the composite core optical fibers, and wherein the plurality of composite cores defines a “first core pattern” in the tapered assembly end face that matches as “second core pattern” of the multicore optical fiber (note that the right end in Fig. 6D matches the multi-core fiber in order for proper coupling and optical alignment).
Regarding further dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-10, there is no express and exact teaching found within the prior art of Abedin ‘014 itself for an outer region surrounding the fused clad region with a 4th refractive index equal to or greater than Abedin’s 3rd index at the cladding (claim 3), or a second / additional cladding around the first cladding with particular refractive indices (claim 4), the exact configuration of plurality of matching optical fibers with cladding and refractive indexes (claims 6-8), or the neckdown region with particulars of a taper ratio of 2 to 4 and second core patterns in the neckdown (claims 9-10).
However, such features are either obvious design choices to one having ordinary skill in the art, with common skill, and/or are found within the secondary prior art reference of Matsuo et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,069,118 B2. Matsuo teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2A, 5A, 5B, 6; corresponding text; Claims) a fan in / fan out device with a neckdown area for the tapering region, and an additional / outer cladding that encompasses the exterior of at least a first cladding (see Fig. 5A in view of Fig. 2A, at 4; the feature of 4 has a higher refractive index than the first cladding 3; see Fig. 5B), and also matching optical fibers (at left, Figs. 1 and 6). The overall structural features of having multiple claddings regions, and the decreasing shape of the neckdown, with preferred ratios and spacings of the components, are shown within embodiments of Matsuo.
Since Abedin and Matsuo are both from the same field of endeavor, the purposes and configurations disclosed by Matsuo would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Abedin.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of Matsuo, to have preferred and selectable neckdown configurations (for claims 9-10), as well as having additional outer regions / second claddings (for claims 3-4) with defined refractive indexes, and also to have matching optical fibers with selectable refractive indexes in the core regions therein (claims 6-8), into the base design of the fan-in / fan-out device of Abedin, to allow for preferred and obvious configurations based on the selectable values for core, cladding, exterior, with those selectable refractive index levels, for allowing variable and desired tolerances for optical coupling from an optical multi-core fiber In/Out of such element, for improving optical operation of the fan out / fan in device. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such features of the dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-10 as selectable and obvious design choices for those features already found in claim 1 of Abedin. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-10 are found obvious over Abedin and further in view of Matsuo.
Claims 3, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. AU 2020 / 100475 A4, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,069,118 B2.
Regarding independent claim 1, Yuan et al. AU 2020 / 100475 A4 teaches (ABS; Fig. 1, 2, 3; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0029] – [0035]; Claims) a fan-in / fan-out device (Fig. 2) for a multicore optical fiber 6 (shown at right in Fig. 2; having multiple cores), comprising: a tapered assembly (overall body 5 in Fig. 2) including a wide end (at left, Fig. 2) and a narrow end (at right, Fig. 2 at 5-1 cross section), the narrow end having a tapered assembly end face (right end of 5-1 tapers smaller at this end); and a plurality of composite core optical fibers (smaller fibers shown, with the pedestal refractive index configuration shown at right in Fig. 1 for the input pedestal fibers) extending from the wide end of the tapered assembly (at right near 5-1), each composite optical fiber including: a composite core having a first core (at 1-1 in Fig. 1) with a first radius and a first index of refraction and a second core (at 1-2 in Fig. 1) with a second radius and a second index of refraction different from the first index of refraction (paras [0030] – [0034]), and a first cladding (at 1-3 in Fig. 1) surrounding the composite core and having a third radius and a third index of refraction different from both the first index of refraction and the second index of refraction (different; see Fig. 1 and pedestals decreasing away from center axis), wherein the tapered assembly end face includes a fused cladding region (see Fig. 2, the claddings are all combined together by narrowing taper of the neck-down region as part of element 5) comprising the first cladding of each of the composite core optical fibers and a plurality of composite cores embedded in the fused cladding (see upper part at 1 in Fig. 1), the plurality of composite cores comprising the composite core of each of the composite core optical fibers, and wherein the plurality of composite cores defines a “first core pattern” in the tapered assembly end face that matches as “second core pattern” of the multicore optical fiber (note that the right end in Fig. 2 matches the multi-core fiber 6 in order for proper coupling and optical alignment).
Regarding further dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-10, there is no express and exact teaching found within the prior art of Yuan AU ‘475 itself for an outer region surrounding the fused clad region with a 4th refractive index equal to or greater than Yuan’s 3rd index at the cladding (claim 3), or a second / additional cladding around the first cladding with particular refractive indices (claim 4), the exact configuration of plurality of matching optical fibers with cladding and refractive indexes (claims 6-8), or the neckdown region with particulars of a taper ratio of 2 to 4 and second core patterns in the neckdown (claims 9-10).
However, such features are either obvious design choices to one having ordinary skill in the art, with common skill, and/or are found within the secondary prior art reference of Matsuo et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,069,118 B2. Matsuo teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2A, 5A, 5B, 6; corresponding text; Claims) a fan in / fan out device with a neckdown area for the tapering region, and an additional / outer cladding that encompasses the exterior of at least a first cladding (see Fig. 5A in view of Fig. 2A, at 4; the feature of 4 has a higher refractive index than the first cladding 3; see Fig. 5B), and also matching optical fibers (at left, Figs. 1 and 6). The overall structural features of having multiple claddings regions, and the decreasing shape of the neckdown, with preferred ratios and spacings of the components, are shown within embodiments of Matsuo.
Since Yuan and Matsuo are both from the same field of endeavor, the purposes and configurations disclosed by Matsuo would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yuan.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of Matsuo, to have preferred and selectable neckdown configurations (for claims 9-10), as well as having additional outer regions / second claddings (for claims 3-4) with defined refractive indexes, and also to have matching optical fibers with selectable refractive indexes in the core regions therein (for claims 6-8), into the base design of the fan-in / fan-out device of Yuan, to allow for preferred and obvious configurations based on the selectable values for core, cladding, exterior, with those selectable refractive index levels, for allowing variable and desired tolerances for optical coupling from an optical multi-core fiber In/Out of such element, for improving optical operation of the fan out / fan in device. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such features of the dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-10 as selectable and obvious design choices for those features already found in claim 1 of Yuan. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-10 are found obvious over Yuan and further in view of Matsuo.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,946,014 B2, and further in view of Fini et al. US 2011/0280517 A1 (for cleaving) and Salokatve US 2009/0154881 A1 (for the collapsible tube being heated and pulled).
Regarding independent method claim 11, Abedin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,946,014 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 6A-6D, 8A, 11, 15; corresponding text, in particular column 9, lines 20-55, column 12, lines 49-61, column 12, lines 5-25; Claims) a fan-in / fan-out device 63 (Fig. 6D), and inherent method of fabricating same, for a multicore optical fiber (shown at right in Fig. 6D; having multiple cores), comprising: a tapered assembly (overall body in Fig. 6D, shown at center as “63”) including a wide end (at left, Fig. 6D) and a narrow end 64 (at right, Fig. 6D), the narrow end having a tapered assembly end face (right end of 63 tapers smaller at this end); and a plurality of composite core optical fibers (see Fig. 8A, at 81a for the input pedestal fibers; note also Fig. 15 and step 151 which discloses these composite core optical fibers) extending from the wide end of the tapered assembly (at right near 61), each composite optical fiber including: a composite core having a first core (at 81a in Fig. 8A) with a first radius and a first index of refraction and a second core (at 82a in Fig. 8A) with a second radius and a second index of refraction different from the first index of refraction (column 9, lines 20-55; Figs. 8A-8B), and a first cladding (at 83a in Fig. 8A) surrounding the composite core and having a third radius and a third index of refraction different from both the first index of refraction and the second index of refraction (different; see Fig. 8A and column 9, lines 20-55), wherein the tapered assembly end face includes a fused cladding region (see Figs. 6A-6D as the individual fibers are fused and the taper includes the cladding region fused together, to form the TFB as in 63, column 6) comprising the first cladding of each of the composite core optical fibers (as in Fig. 6A at 62) and a plurality of composite cores embedded in the fused cladding, the plurality of composite cores comprising the composite core of each of the composite core optical fibers, and wherein the plurality of composite cores defines a “first core pattern” in the tapered assembly end face that matches as “second core pattern” of the multicore optical fiber (note that the right end in Fig. 6D matches the multi-core fiber in order for proper coupling and optical alignment).
Regarding independent method of fabricating claim 11, Abedin does not expressly and exactly teach using a heatable tube (such as silicon), which is placed around the individual composite core optical fibers, then heated / drawn down to collapse the tube over/around the fibers, or that the method includes cleaving the neckdown region of the tapered assembly after being made smaller.
However, such method step features are found within the general level of skill in the art for manufacturing fan-in / fan-out device that combine multiple optical fiber cores into smaller configuration as opposite (tapered) ends, so that coupling can occur at such a fan-out / fan-in device to different shapes. For example, Fini et al. US 2011/0280517 A1 teaches (paragraphs [0040], [0073] for cleaving) that the end result is cleaved to form a distinct end surface that can couple to another optical element / device; and while Salokatve US 2009/0154881 A1 (the tube 31 which can be collapsed as being heated and pulled, around the individual composite core fibers) for the recognized way to use a collapsible tube (being silicon would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date as a selectable material).
Therefore, such an overall method of fabrication that incorporates features from Abedin, Fini, and Salokatve would have been an obvious combination to create an overall fan-in / fan-out device, as obvious design choices for manufacture to accomplish the same end structure as used in Abedin.
Since Abedin, Fini, and Salokatve are all from the same field of endeavor, the purposes and configurations disclosed for manufacturing methods by Fini and Salokatve would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Abedin.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of Fini and Salokatve, for cleaving the final product as the tapered end, or to use a collapsible tube (silicon or otherwise), being heated and drawn to cover/protect the inner core features, into the base method and manufacture of the fan-in / fan-out device of Abedin, to allow for preferred and obvious configurations of a method to achieve the same / similar resulting structure of the device. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such features using those method steps (cleaving; collapsing (silicon) tube being heated and drawn) as selectable and obvious design choices for those features already found in method claim 11 of Abedin. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 11, and the further method steps outlined by dependent claims 12-21 are found obvious over Abedin and further in view of Fini / Salokatve. All such further dependent claims 12-21 are found generally within the prior art, or are selectable design choices for the method based on the features enumerated for claim 11. KSR.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A-E and G, which pertain to the state of the art of fan-in / fan-out devices that couple individual optical fibers with a multi-core optical fiber, using tapering / narrowing formations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights