DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2012/0020107 to Lundin et al.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 13-15 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,768,860 to Tatsukami et al. in view of Lundin et al (cited above).
Tatsukami discloses in the abstract and figure 1, an optical waveguide comprising:
At least one core (1) defining a longitudinal axis Z, and a cladding (2) surrounding said core, said core and said cladding being configured to transmit along said axis Z a light beam (background of invention) having a wavelength greater than 180nm (650nm disclosed in Examples 1-2), said core comprising at least an outermost layer (outside of 1) and innermost layer of cladding (inside of 2) where the innermost layer contacts the core (figure 1), wherein
Said outermost layer of the core is made of a material having a first index of refraction,
Said innermost layer is made at least partially of a thermoplastic elastomer (thermoplastic fluoroubbers and resins are used and see disclosure of the compound used defined as “DAI-EL” in column 3, lines 41-column 4, line 2) having a second index of refraction being smaller than the first index of refraction (column 5, lines 53-55 and column 3, lines 26-35 describe the core refractive index being smaller than the cladding).
Wherein the outermost layer of the core and cladding together guide light by total internal reflection (this is the definition of an optical fiber).
Claims 3-5, 7, 10, and 13-15 disclose various materials, added layers, silicone core and outcoupling light characteristics.
As to claim 6, column 3, lines 26-35 describe the core having a refractive index smaller than the cladding value with a practical value of the cladding index being 1.42 or less.
As to claim 8, the waveguide is an optical fiber (column 1, line 67).
Claims 24-25 disclose a general preform and extrusion of a fiber with the materials claimed in the prior art (Prior art column 4, line 64-column 5, line 22).
Although Tatsukami discloses a thermoplastic fluororeubber/resin, Tatsukami does not specifically disclose a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer cladding. It is noted that the prior art does disclose many materials including “DAI-EL” which from material product sheets show characteristics of TPE materials. In addition, these materials are interchanged depending on their suitability for their intended use.
Lundin discloses numerous materials that include art recognized equivalents in the cladding such as thermoplastic polyurethanes or combinations thereof (paragraph 45) to confine light (paragraph 12) and allow for light injection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust and use the claimed values given the effective result variables taught in Lundin in order to optimize light confinement.
Claim(s) 9, 12, 16, 18-23, 34, 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsukami et al. in view of Lundin et al (hereinafter TIL) in view of US 5,928,222 to Kleinerman.
TIL discloses the invention as claimed except for added fibers, shape of the fiber and its use in medical applications. It is noted that the intended use is not a positive limitation and the current claims that recite such, do so in the preamble with no added structure to support such a use.
Claim 34 relates to method claims of a rectangular fiber.
Kleinerman discloses such uses and fiber characteristics for their use (abstract and figures 15, 19 and 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the arrangements taught by Kleinerman with fibers of TIL to create devices for use in respective fields with maximum optimization of fiber bend and light confinement.
Claim(s) 32-33 and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIN as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of US 10,852,479 to Bhethanabotla et al.
TIN discloses the invention and general methods for extruding from a preform the structure of the claimed optical fiber.
However, TINLfails to explicitly disclose using 3D printing techniques to produce a preform. It is noted that no specific steps are claimed as to this 3D printing process. 3D printing is utilized in multiple fields as an efficient and cost effective method to produce parts.
Bhethanabotla discloses such a common 3D printing device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a 3D printer as taught by Bhethanabotla to produce the needed preform in TIL to reduce cost.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIN in view of US 2015/0284537 to Henze et al.
TIN discloses the invention as claimed except for the specific use of BASF Elastollan 1185 variants. Such materials are well known and available in the art.
Henze discloses this BASF-branded material (paragraph 168) as a flame retardant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include materials taught in Henze in TIN to provide flame retardance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0063625 (thermoplastic polyutethanes).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights