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 ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on August 13, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1, “and buffer relative refractive index” should be changed to “and a buffer relative refractive index; and” for grammatical purposes.
Regarding claim 7, the amendment of the preamble has reduced it to “of.” which renders the claim grammatical incorrect and unclear as to whether all or only some of the claimed features are required. For the purposes of examination, “of.” will be examined as “further comprising at least one of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US 2013/0077925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirano discloses an optical fiber (Fig. 1) comprising: a glass core (paragraph 0011) defined by a central core region (core region to radial position r1) surrounded by an outer core region (core region to radial position r3), wherein the central core region has a centerline dip, wherein the centerline dip has a centerline width of 2 to 3 microns (Table II, Example 9 discloses a centerline width radius r1 of 1 micron, which corresponds to a centerline width of 2 microns), wherein the outer core region has a core parameter alpha in a range of 3-8 (paragraph 0040); and a trench region (Fig. 7b, Fig. 8); wherein the optical fiber further comprises a buffer clad region between the outer core region and the trench region, wherein the buffer clad region has at least one of a buffer thickness and a buffer relative refractive index (see annotated Fig. 7b below which shows a buffer cladding with a thickness and a relative refractive index), and wherein the optical fiber further comprises an outer cladding region as the outermost layer, disposed radially outward of the trench region, wherein the outer cladding region has at least one of an outer cladding thickness and an outer cladding relative refractive index (see annotated Fig. 7b below which shows an outer cladding with a thickness and a relative refractive index).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Still regarding claim 1, Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the centerline relative refractive index and the trench relative refractive index. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed relative refractive indexes in order to reduce transmission loss resulting in a higher quality signal, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Still regarding claim 1, Hirano further discloses the optical fiber having a small macro-bend loss in paragraph 0057. Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the macro-bend losses. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed losses in order to minimize transmission loss resulting in a higher quality signal, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Still regarding claim 1, Hirano further discloses the mode field diameter at a wavelength of 1550 nanometers in paragraph 0063. Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the mode field diameter at a wavelength of 1310 nanometers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed mode field diameter in order to reduce splice loss, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Still regarding claim 1, Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the cable cutoff wavelength less than or equal to 1260 nanometers. However, as Hirano further discloses a standard optical fiber of the ITU-T G.652 series having a cable cutoff wavelength less than or equal to 1260 nanometers in paragraph 0006, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed cable cutoff wavelength in order to comply with industry standards, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Hirano further discloses the outer core region having an outer core width in a range from 2.7 to 4.6 microns and the central core has a thickness greater than 0 and less than 3 microns in Table II, Example 9. Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the maximum relative refractive index in range of 0.3 to 0.4. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed relative refractive index in order to reduce transmission loss resulting in a higher quality signal, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Hirano discloses the glass core has a core thickness of 3.5 to 6 micrometers in Table II, Example 9.
Regarding claim 7, Hirano further discloses the optical fiber further comprising at least one of a buffer clad region, a trench region and an outer cladding region in Fig. 7b and Fig. 8. Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the relative refractive indexes. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed relative refractive indexes in order to reduce transmission loss resulting in a higher quality signal, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Hirano further discloses the optical fiber splices with standard single mode fiber in paragraphs 0012 and 0039. Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating full compatibility with the claimed categories of fibers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have full compatibility with the claimed categories of fibers in order to have a wider range of use and applicability.
Regarding claim 9, Hirano further discloses the optical fiber having small attenuation in paragraph 0064. Hirano teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the attenuation at 1310 nanometers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed attenuation in order to reduce transmission loss resulting in a higher quality signal, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, August 13, 2025, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
As shown above in annotated Fig. 7b, Hirano further discloses the amended features of a buffer clad region and an outer cladding region.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 November 13, 2025