DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on December 3, 2025 was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 2 was canceled. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued September 17, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “not including a mercury containing lamp” renders the claim indefinite. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; and the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion (MPEP 2173.05 i). The original disclosure of the instant application does not provide support of excluding the mercury containing lamp. In addition, applicant recited Table 1 support for the range of the effective power consumption (0.084 kWs or more and 0.23.kWs or less) and the range of rate of change of a Young’s modulus (20% or more and 50% or less), however, it is noted that when the claimed effective power consumption (0.084kWs and 0.23kWs, examples 4 and 8) correlates to the rate of change of a Young’s modulus of 18% and 40%; thus the claimed rate of change of Young’s modulus should be 18% or more and 40% or less, instead of the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US20200026012), Nakanishi (US 20130064516), Kawahara (JP2019064853A) in view of Bender (WO2020234268A1), and further evidenced by Fan (CN110330501B).
Regarding claim 1, Murata teaches a method of forming an optical fiber colored core wire (paragraph 0002). Murata teaches the optical fiber includes a glass fiber, a primary resin coating an outer circumference of the glass fiber, a secondary resin layer coating an outer circumference of the primary resin (paragraphs 0012-0013, figure, 1). Murata teaches to apply an ultraviolet (UV) curable first resin composition to the glass fiber and form the primary resin layer by curing the first resin composition by irradiation with UV light (paragraphs 0013, 0022). Murata teaches to apply an UV curable second resin composition to the primary resin layer and form the secondary resin layer by curing the second resin composition by irradiation with UV light (paragraphs 0013, 0023). Murata teaches to apply an UV third resin composition to an outer circumference of the secondary resin layer and form a colored resin layer by curing the third resin composition by irradiation with UV light (paragraphs 0013 and 0024). Murata teaches the Young’s modulus of the primary reins layer before and after the forming the colored resin layer is changed in the range that overlaps with the claimed range (see table 1, first two lines, example 1: 0.6-0.5/0.5 X 100% = 20%). In addition, Murata teaches the small changes of the Young’s modules of primary resin layer before and after the forming the colored resin layer indicated the sufficient curing of the primary layer (paragraph 0033), and such changes governs the level of hardness, transmission loss of light and the microlending characteristic of the resulting optical fiber (paragraphs 0027, 0033-0035). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the rate of change of the Young’s modulus of the primary resin layer before and after the forming the colored resin layer in the process to yield the desired level of hardness, transmission loss of light and the microlending characteristic of the resulting optical fiber. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Murata further teaches the Young’s modulus of the primary resin layer after the forming the colored resin layer is 0.6MPa, 0.36MPa (see table 1), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Murata does not explicitly teach the UV curing is conducted by UVLED. However, Nakanishi teaches a method of making an optical fiber and discloses UV LED is used to cure the resins when making the optical fiber (paragraph 0041) (not including a mercury containing lamp). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use UVLED as suggested by Nakanishi in the method of making optical fiber as disclosed by Murata because Nakanishi teaches to UV LED is suitable for using to cure the resin and the light source itself does not generate heat, thus a mechanism for heating can be separately controlled (paragraph 0041).
Murata in view of Nakanishi teaches all limitations of this claim, except the range of the power consumption and the formula for power consumption. However, Kawahara teaches a method for producing an optical fiber, including a glass fiber, a primary resin coating covering the fiber and a secondary resin coating cover the primary resin coating (abstract, paragraphs 0001-0002, 0013 and 0028). Kawahara teaches ultraviolet LED (UV LED) is used as the ultraviolet light source in curing the first and second resin coatings (paragraphs 0042, 0087 and 0094). Kawahara teaches UVLEDs do not easily become hot, the cooling device can be simplified which results in further reduction in power consumption during the operation (paragraph 0046) and the high power consumption increase the production cost (paragraph 0003), thus, Kawahara indicates there is a power consumption with UV LEDS and it is desired to keep it low for production cost. Kawahara does not explicitly teach the formula for the calculate the power consumption of the UVLEDs. However, formula 1 appears to be a conventional formula for calculating the total power consumption of the UVLED by summing up the power consumption of each light source, wherein each light source’s power consumption is power times the duration and power setting ratio (see evidence Fan paragraph 0004, 0008). Thus, the formula to calculate the power consumption is considered to be intrinsic for any UVLED, and one of more of Bn, predetermined rate of power and tn is considered to be adjusted to maintain the effective power consumption.
Kawahara further teaches the duration of the UV curing is long enough, for example at least 0.01 seconds, to harden the UV curing resins (paragraphs 0051), in accordance with the change in the take up speed of the optical fiber during the curing process (paragraph 0059). In addition, Bender teaches a method of applying a UV curable resin on a surface and curing with UV lamp (abstract, paragraphs 0002 and 0046). Bender teaches to use a UV lamp with the power consumption of 40-300W for the low cost and environmental standpoint (paragraph 0144), which is also desired by Kawahara. It would also be obvious to adjust and optimize the irradiation duration for the proper curing of the coatings according to the take up speed of the optical wire during curing (see Kawahara paragraphs 0010, 0051 and 0059). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize in the power consumption (total power consumption of the lights times the duration) in the process to achieve low cost production but proper curing according to the take up speed of the optical wire during curing. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 3, Murata teaches the forming the primary resin layer is performed together with the forming the secondary resin layer rafter the applying the second resin composition (paragraphs 0022-0023).
Regarding claim 4, Murata teaches forming the primary resin layer is performed before the applying the second resin composition (paragraphs 0022-0023).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Claim 1 has been amended to specify a Young’s modulus, and therefore, the relationship between the effective power consumption and the Young’s modulus is clear.
The formula for tn is tn= L/V_f, which is not in general calculations of ultraviolet LED power consumption.
If the rate of change of Young’s modulus is less than 20%, the effective power consumption becomes excessively high, and the power saving effect cannot be achieved.
Kawahara teaches a combination of ultraviolet maps and ultraviolet LED and Bender does not specify that irradiation is preformed using only ultraviolet LEDs.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
There is no definition or discussion of the relationship between the power consumption and the Young’s modulus in the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tn= L/V_f,) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “tn” is defined in the claim as an irradiation time of the nth light source, which is considered and addressed in the prior art rejections above.
It appears applicant intended to show unexpected result of the claimed range (Young’s modulus). However, it is well settled that the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance (MEPE 716.02(b)). In addition, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (716.02(d) II). While table 1 in the specification shows the effective power consumption has a correlation with the rate of change of Young’s modulus, it does not show a significant change of the Young’s modulus when the power consumption is inside of the claimed range compared to outside of the claimed range. Applicant has also not provided evidence to show the criticality of the claimed range of 20% or more or 50% or less as a rate of change of Young’s modulus. A statement of “effective power consumption becomes excessively high and the power saving effect cannot be achieved” is not enough to establish the criticality of a claimed range. Fig. 2 in the specification also does not show a range of effective power consumption in which the rate off change of Young’s modulus is favorable, it merely shows a correlation between the two parameters. In addition, the claim itself does not include a relationship between effective energy consumption and Young’s modulus, thus, the effect of the power consumption on the Young’s modulus is not a claimed feature.
Nakanishi teaches to use only UVLEDs (see rejections above). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In addition, the excluding of mercury containing lamp limitation is not fully supported by the original disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717