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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 11/24/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202211067689 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An electronic retrieval request made by the Office on 04/24/2024 failed. Applicant remains responsible for the submission of the certified copy of the foreign application during the pendency of the application and before the patent is issued.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second coating" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it should be a second coating. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 2020/0400903 by Tanaka et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6,714,713 to Lanier et al.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an optical fiber ribbon (2, Fig. 3) comprising: a plurality of optical fibers (1a-1l) arranged substantially parallel to one another; wherein each optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers (1a-1l) comprising: one or more coatings (primary coating layer 11, example in Fig. 1); a passive layer (secondary coating layer 12) surrounding the one or more coatings (11); wherein the passive layer is in continuous contact with (surrounding circumferentially, Fig. 1) the one or more coatings; and a color layer (13) surrounding the passive layer (12); wherein the color layer (13) is in continuous contact with (surrounding circumferentially) the passive layer (12); and a plurality of resin (¶[0084]) joints (3) applied for intermittently contacting the color layer (13) of each pair of adjacent optical fibers of the plurality of optical fibers (10) to form bonded portions of the optical fiber ribbon (2).
Tanaka does not specify a strip force between the passive layer and the coating as claimed. Lanier teaches an optical fiber (12) having one or more coatings (interfacial layer 15) and a passive layer (buffer layer 14), wherein the average strip force is 4.1 N for a buffer with an ID of 259 microns (Table 1). (Note in an embodiment featuring more than one coating, e.g., a soft primary coating and a relative rigid second coating that including ink identifying means in col. 4, ll. 7-23, stripability of the buffer layer is not applicable.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tanaka’s invention, by performing routine experimentation to determine a suitable, low shrinkage, passive layer material as suggested by Lanier that maintains good strip performance, such that a craftsman can easily strip any outer layer(s) from the optical fiber, for example, during a termination procedure.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka further teaches the one or more coatings (11) comprises one outer coating (11).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka further teaches the passive layer (12) is made up of an Ultraviolet (UV) curable acrylate polymer (¶[0133]).
Regarding claim 7 and with reference to the “tandem process” used to manufacture the optical fiber ribbon, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. That is, the process has no bearing on the patentability of the product claim and is not given patentable weight or treated on merits. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka further teaches a first and second resin joints are applied intermittently contacting a first layer of the first optical fibers and a second color layer of the second optical fibers (Fig. 3, ¶[0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka further teaches the plurality of resin joints are made up of a curable resin material selected from Ultraviolet (UV) curable resin material, a polyester resin, a phenolic resin, an alkyd resin, a polycarbonate resin, a polyamide resin, a silicone resin, an epoxy resin, an acrylate polymer (¶[0058]-[0059]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. and Lanier et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,684,434 to Chalk et al.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches the optical fiber ribbon comprising the plurality of optical fiber but does not specify a core-cladding-coating structure for the optical fibers. Chalk also teaches an optical fiber ribbon (10) comprising: a plurality of optical fibers (16) arranged substantially parallel to one another; wherein each optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers (16) comprising: one or more coatings (coating layer 22); a passive layer (inner layer 24) surrounding the one or more coatings (see at least col 5, ll. 6-10); wherein the passive layer is in continuous contact with (see at least col 5, ll. 6-10) the one or more coatings; and a color layer (outer surface 26 of inner layer 24 is formed (in whole or in part) from a UV curable acrylate ink material located on the outer surface of each optical fiber 16 providing color-based identification, col. 5, ll. 32-38) surrounding (i.e., formed in whole) the passive layer (24); wherein the color layer is in continuous contact with the passive layer (“on the outer surface”); and wherein each of the optical fibers (16) further includes a core (18), a cladding (20) surrounding the core, and the coating (22), passive layer and color layer surrounding the cladding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tanaka’s invention by using a fiber having a core and a cladding, as a conventional and known design in the art that ensures total internal reflection of optical signal propagating through the optical fibers.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. and Lanier et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 4,660,927 to Kondow et al.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches the optical fiber ribbon as claimed in claim 1 comprising the passive layer (12) but does not specify that the passive layer (112) is cured at least 85%. Kondow also teaches an optical fiber coating of a UV-cured composition (Example 11), and Kondow further finds that the coating composition had been completely cured into a uniform rubbery coating layer without surface tackiness, which could readily be peeled off from the surface of the optical fiber by drawing between fingers without leaving any traces of the coating layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fully cure (i.e., 100%) UV-curable passive layer material in Tanaka’s invention, for the same reason and advantage stated by Kondow.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. and Lanier et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 6,321,014 to Overton et al.
Regarding claims 6, Tanaka teaches the optical fiber ribbon as claimed in claim 1 comprising the passive layer (secondary coating layer 12) but does not specify a thickness of the passive layer is in a range of 4 micrometers (μm) to 12 μm. Overton teaches a method for manufacturing optical fiber ribbons comprising a plurality of optical fibers, each of which having a primary coating and a secondary coating (equivalent to secondary coating layer 12 of Tanaka), wherein the secondary coating layer has a thickness of from about 3 μm to about 30 μm (see at least col. 4, ll. 37-41 and claim 25 of Overton). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations and determine an optimal or appropriate thickness for the passive layer (or the secondary coating layer as stated in Tanaka), in a range suggested by Overton, so as to balance the need to provide protection for the optical fibers therein, e.g., mechanical strength or moisture barrier, and to minimize the cost and size for manufacturing the optical fibers.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. and Lanier et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2008/0085947 by Ward et al.
Regarding claims 8, Tanaka teaches the optical fiber ribbon as claimed in claim 1 comprising the passive layer (secondary coating layer 12) but does not specify an elongation at break for the passive layer. Ward teaches an optical fiber coating that is UV-curable and when cured, has an elongation at break of from about 20% to about 80% (¶[0154]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations and determine an optimal or appropriate elongation at break for the passive layer (or the secondary coating layer as stated in Tanaka), in a range suggested by Ward, so as to the coating does not prematurely fail under tensile stress and render it unable to provide protection for the optical fibers therein.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. and Lanier et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2007/031096 by Moorjani et al.
Regarding claims 9, 11, 12, Tanaka teaches the optical fiber ribbon as claimed in claim 1 but not the additional strip force range between the passive layer and the color layer, or the tensile strength and viscosity of the passive layer. Moorjani teaches an optical fiber having a passive layer (16) and a color layer (18), wherein the passive and color layers have a strip force in a range of 3-9 Newton (Fig. 2, ¶[0020], wherein the passive layer (16) has a tensile strength of 20 MPa or greater (¶[0027]), and wherein the passive layer (16) has a viscosity of 0.5 PaS. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tanaka’s invention by performing routine experimentations in various ranges suggested by Moorjani to determine the strip force, tensile strength and viscosity of the coating/passive layer, since it creates low-cost buffered optical fiber that allows mechanical stripping of relatively long lengths of the buffer layer without damaging the optical fiber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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. Relevant prior art of record fails to further teach or suggest that the passive layer surrounding first and second coatings (108aa, 108ab, respectively) of the optical fiber, and the strip force between the second coating and the passive layer and the of between 1-5 N, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US5181268 discloses a strippable tight buffered fiber.
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 CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874