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 .
Specification
2. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
6. Claims 8-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over de Montmorillon et al. (US-20200319398-A1) in view of Mozdy et al. (US-20030035638-A1).
With respect to claim 8, de Montmorillon et al. (figure 1) disclose an optical fiber comprising: an axial center (r0) ) [0070]);a core (101) extending radially from r0 to a core radius (rcore), the core comprising a core relative refractive index (Δcore) ([0069]); an inner cladding (102) extending radially from rcore to an inner cladding radius (rinner-clad), the inner cladding comprising a r-dependent inner cladding relative refractive index (Δinner_clad(r)) ([0064], [0065]); the outer cladding (104) extending radially from rinner_clad to an outer cladding radius (router-clad) and macro-bending losses that comply with ITU-T G.657.A2 recommendations ([0051]).
de Montmorillon et al. do not explicitly disclose a reference relative refractive index (Δ0); the inner cladding Δinner_clad(r) decreasing approximately linearly as a function of r, Δinner-clad(r) decreasing from a first inner cladding relative refractive index (Ainner_clad_1) to a second inner cladding relative refractive index (Δinner-clad_2); and the outer cladding comprising an outer cladding relative refractive index (Δouter-clad), Δouter_clad being approximately equal to Δ0 (Δouter_clad ≅ Δo).
However, Mozdy et al. (figure 1) teach an optical fiber (10) comprising a reference relative refractive index (Δ0) ([0027]); the inner cladding (14) Δinner_clad(r) decreasing approximately linearly as a function of r, Δinner-clad(r) decreasing from a first inner cladding relative refractive index (Ainner_clad_1) to a second inner cladding relative refractive index (Δinner-clad_2) ([0041]); and the outer cladding (16) comprising an outer cladding relative refractive index (Δouter-clad), Δouter_clad being approximately equal to Δ0 (Δouter_clad ≅ Δo) ([0027], [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon with the above features (accordance with the teaching of Mozdy et al.) for the purpose of minimizing non-linear effects such as two-channel four-wave mixing and cross-phase modulation in the amplifier, and minimizing the intrinsically higher L-band noise figure ([0008]).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except Δ0 is approximately equal to zero percent (Δ0
PNG
media_image2.png
10
11
media_image2.png
Greyscale
0±0.03%).
However, Δ0 being approximately equal to zero percent (Δ0
PNG
media_image2.png
10
11
media_image2.png
Greyscale
0±0.03%) is considered to be obvious to obtain higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon to include the above features for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission, and it also has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and it is noted that the applicant does not disclose criticality in the value claimed. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
With respect to claims 10-11, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except router_clad is not greater than ~62.5µm (router_ clad ≤~62.5±1.0 µm) and router_clad ≤~40.0±1.0 µm.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon to form router_clad is not greater than ~62.5µm (router_ clad ≤~62.5±1.0 µm) and router_clad ≤~40.0±1.0 µm as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 12, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except rcore is not less than approximately 4.0 micrometers and not greater than approximately 4.5 micrometers.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon to form rcore is not less than approximately 4.0 micrometers and not greater than approximately 4.5 micrometers as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claims 13-14, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except rinner_clad/rcore is between approximately 3.2 and approximately 4.2 and rinner_clad/rcore ≤~4.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon to form rinner_clad/rcore is between approximately 3.2 and approximately 4.2 and rinner_clad/rcore ≤~4 as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 15, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except Δ core is between approximately 0.33 percent and approximately 0.40 percent.
However, the Δ core between approximately 0.33 percent and approximately 0.40 percent is considered to be obvious to obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission, and it also 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 and it is noted that the applicant does not disclose criticality in the ranges claimed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (see MPEP § 2144.05).
With respect to claim 16, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except Δ inner_clad_1 is not greater than Δ 0 and wherein Δ inner clad_2 is less than Δ inner clad_1.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon to form Δ inner_clad_1 is not greater than Δ 0 and wherein Δ inner clad_2 is less than Δ inner clad_1 as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 18, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except Δ inner clad_2 is between approximately -0.235 percent and approximately -0.275 percent.
However, Δ inner clad_2 between approximately -0.235 percent and approximately -0.275 percent is considered to be obvious to obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of obtaining higher efficiency of optical signal transmission, and it also 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 and it is noted that the applicant does not disclose criticality in the ranges claimed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (see MPEP § 2144.05).
With respect to claim 20, de Montmorillon et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except a nominal mode-field diameter (MFD) between approximately 8.6pm and approximately 9.2pm at a center wavelength (k) of approximately 1310 nanometers(~1310nm), the nominal MFD having a tolerance of approximately ±0.4pm; and a cable cutoff wavelength that is less than -1260nm.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de Montmorillon to form a nominal mode-field diameter (MFD) between approximately 8.6pm and approximately 9.2pm at a center wavelength (k) of approximately 1310 nanometers(~1310nm), the nominal MFD having a tolerance of approximately ±0.4pm; and a cable cutoff wavelength that is less than -1260nm as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
7. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over de Montmorillon et al. and Mozdy et al. (as cited above), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bookbinder et al. (US-20160304392-A1).
With respect to claim 17, de Montmorillon et al. and Mozdy et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the outer cladding is doped with between approximately 0.8 weight percent (~0. 8wt%) fluorine (F) and ~1.1wt% F, and wherein the core is doped with between ~0.75wt% chlorine (Cl) and ~1.5wt% Cl.
However, Bookbinder et al. teach an optical fiber device including the outer cladding is doped with between approximately 0.8 weight percent (~0. 8wt%) fluorine (F) and ~1.1wt% F, and wherein the core is doped with between ~0.75wt% chlorine (Cl) and ~1.5wt% Cl ([0048], [0070] and table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the above combination by including the above features (accordance with the teaching of Bookbinder et al.) for the purpose of reducing internal stresses in the core, leading to better attenuation characteristics ([0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 19 is 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the optical fiber as recited in claim 19.
9. Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose an optical fiber as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US-8452145-B2) discloses a triple-clad optical fiber. And Bookbinder et al. (US-10215915-B2) disclose optical fibers with low bend losses.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874