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 July 9, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 22, 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novack et al. (AU 692813 B2) in view of Yagi et al. (6,269,210), further in view of Fukuzawa et al. (4,973,129).
Regarding claim 1, Novack discloses a coated optical fiber (Fig. 1) comprising: a glass optical fiber comprising a fiber core (12A) and a cladding (12B) surrounding the fiber core; a polymer coating (14) surrounding the glass optical fiber along a first end region defining a first end configured to be coupled to an optical fiber connector and a second region extending away from the first end region (page 7, lines 10-15, describes during the process of connectorization, “buffer 16 is stripped from a predetermined length of a terminal end of optical fiber” which would include a first end region defining a first end surface of the coated optical fiber as well as a second region extending away from the first end region); wherein the polymer coating is a single layer without additional layers adhered to the polymer coating (see claim 20 – the buffer is removed from the protective polymer coating; thus the portion of optical fiber to be interconnected comprises only the optical fiber 12 and protective coating 14 without additional layers adhered) wherein the polymer coating has a thickness between 0.1 µm and 10 µm (page 14, lines 15-17) and a high hardness in order to protect the optical fiber (see abstract).
Still regarding claim 1, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the shore D hardness value, pencil hardness value and elastic modulus. However, Novack discloses that a high degree of hardness is essential to protect the optical fiber from any mechanical forces during the handling process and subsequent bonding with adhesive to a connector or splicing device on page 7, line 8 to page 8, line 28. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to maximize the hardness of the protective coating and arrive at the claimed shore D hardness, pencil hardness and elastic modulus in order to enhance protection of the optical fiber while minimizing connection 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, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for the coating having a concentricity relative to the fiber core. Yagi discloses an optical fiber having a core (13a), a cladding (13b) and a coating (14) which has a concentricity relative to the core ranging between 0.1 µm and 0.5 µm in Table 4. Since both of the inventions relate to optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the coating having a concentricity relative to the core as disclosed by Yagi in the device of Novack for the purpose of reducing splice loss.
Still regarding claim 1, the proposed combination of Novack and Yagi teaches the claimed invention except for the second region extending away from the optical fiber connector. Fukuzawa discloses a coated optical fiber (Fig. 1) comprising a fiber core (2A), a cladding (2B), and a polymer coating (3) which is a single layer without additional layers adhered to the polymer coating along a first end region and a second end region abutting the first end region and extending away from the first end region for a length such that a portion of the second region extends away from the optical fiber connector when the connector is connected to the coated optical fiber (column 4, lines 21-41 describe a single layer jacket 3 made of a hard resin without additional layers adhered thereto; column 2, lines 49-56 describe the resin layer jacket need not be peeled and can be directly contact-bonded to a connector, implying there would be a second region abutting the first connectorized region and extending away from said first region). Since all of the inventions relate to optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have a second region extending away from the optical fiber connector as disclosed by Fukuzawa in the device of the proposed combination of Novack and Yagi for the purpose increasing the versatility of the connectorization process.
Regarding claim 2, the proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for the material of the polymer coating. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the polymer coating from the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the claimed concentricity. 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 concentricity 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.
Regarding claim 6, Novack further discloses a ferrule having a front end, a rear end, and a ferrule bore extending between the front end and the rear end, wherein the coated optical fiber is positioned within the ferrule (see page 1, line 28 to page 2, line 3; since the fiber is described as being “fixed into” the ferrule, the ferrule must have a front end, a rear end and a ferrule bore extending between the front end and the rear end). The proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the concentricity of the core to the ferrule. 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 concentricity in order to reduce transmission 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.
Regarding claim 8, the proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the insertion loss. 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 insertion loss in order to enhance transmission of the 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 9, the proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for the material of the polymer coating. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the polymer coating from the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 22, the proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the deviation of the thickness of the polymer coating. However, Novack discusses loss due to radial movement of the coated fiber inside the connector or splicing device. Since Novack recognizes that signal loss may arise due to misalignment, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to minimize the deviation of the thickness of the polymer coating and arrive at the claimed deviation value in order to minimize signal 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.
Regarding claim 23, Novack discloses an outer diameter of the coated optical fiber along the first end region and the second region is substantially the same, since the buffer is removed along the entire predetermined length, leaving only the thin polymer coating. Fukuzawa also discloses an outer diameter of the coated optical fiber along the first end region and the second region is substantially the same in Fig. 1, since there are no additional layers along the entire length of the fiber.
Regarding claim 25, the proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the length of the coated optical fiber. 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 length in order to transmit a signal to a desired location, 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 claims 26 and 27, the proposed combination of Novack, Yagi and Fukuzawa teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the thickness of the coating. 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 thickness in order to reduce the size of the fiber, 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, see pages 7-12, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 7-12, Applicant argues that Fukuzawa teaches away from Novack because Novack discloses commercially usable communication and data transmissions applications have numerical aperture (NA) values of 0.29 or less while Fukuzawa teaches NA values of 0.35 or more. However, Novack specifically states “[u]seable optical fibers are said to be limited to those having a NA value of 0.35 or more” and “[w]hen the NA of the optical fiber is 0.35 or more, however, microbending loss was not found to be a problem.” See Novack, p. 2, line 29 to p. 3, line 2. Thus, an NA of 0.29 or less may be the most desirable, but a NA of 0.35 in certain instances is perfectly functional and operable.
The courts have held that the disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the claims of a utility patent application were directed to a shoe sole with increased traction having hexagonal projections in a “facing orientation.” 391 F.3d at 1196-97, 73 USPQ2d at 1142. The Board combined a design patent having hexagonal projections in a facing orientation with a utility patent having other limitations of the independent claim. 391 F.3d at 1199, 73 USPQ2d at 1144. Applicant argued that the combination was improper because (1) the prior art did not suggest having the hexagonal projections in a facing (as opposed to a “pointing”) orientation was the “most desirable” configuration for the projections, and (2) the prior art “taught away” by showing desirability of the “pointing orientation.” 391 F.3d at 1200-01, 73 USPQ2d at 1145-46. In this instance, an NA of 0.29 or less may be the most desirable alternative, but Novack specifically states that when the NA value is 0.35 or more, “the microbending loss is not a problem”. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to make the modification for certain applications where a low NA is not required.
Furthermore, it is noted claims 1 and 6 do not require any particular NA value. Thus, each and every element of claims 1 and 6 are taught or suggested by the combination of references as detailed above, and the prima facie rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights