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 .
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 incorr3ect, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebgen et al. (US 20210157048; “Hebgen”) in view of Bickham et al. (US 9057814; “Bickham”) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Molin et al. (US 20110058781; “Molin”).
Regarding claim 1, Hebgen (¶s 0008-0013; ¶ 0080 - ¶ 0107; ¶ 0138- ¶ 0151; claim 1; figures 5-7) discloses an optical fiber comprising: a core region, the core region having a radius r1 in a range from 5.5 µm to 9.0 µm (e.g. claim 1: "a radius r1 in a range from 4.0 µm to 10.0 µm") and a relative refractive index profile ∆1 having a maximum relative refractive index ∆1ₘₐₓ in a range from -0.05% to 0.05% (e.g., Hebgen claim 1); a cladding region surrounding and directly adjacent to the core region, the cladding region comprising: a trench cladding region surrounding the core region, the trench cladding region comprising silica glass (e.g., ¶ 0095) and having a radius r3, a relative refractive index ∆3, and a trench volume less than 20% µm² (e.g., ¶ 0098); and an outer cladding region surrounding and directly adjacent to the trench cladding region, the outer cladding region comprising silica glass (all layers are silica based) having a radius r4 and a relative refractive index ∆4 in a range from -0.40% to -0.20% (¶ 0099); and a coating surrounding and directly adjacent to the outer cladding region, the coating having an outer radius less than or equal to 110 µm; (¶ 0139: "The outer diameter of the secondary coating was approximately 240 µm", implying the secondary coating radius of approximately 120 µm. This in turn implies the primary coating {¶ 0139: "a primary coating surrounded and was directly adjacent to the outer cladding region"} having an outer radius less than or equal to 110 µm) and wherein the optical fiber has an effective area at 1550 nm in the range from 115 µm² to 135 µm² (¶ 0131); a macrobend loss at 1550 nm, as determined by a mandrel wrap test using a mandrel with a diameter of 32 mm, less than 0.300 dB/turn (Fig. 7A-B); a macrobend loss at 1550 nm, as determined by a mandrel wrap test using a mandrel with a diameter of 50 mm, less than 0.030 dB/turn (¶ 0143; Fig. 7A-B).
Hebgen does not explicitly state that (i) a microbend loss at 1550 nm, as determined by winding at a tension of 30 g about a drum having a radius of 153 mm covered with sandpaper (40 micron, Al₂O₃), less than 3.0 dB/km. The technical effect of the difference is to provide an optical fiber with a controlled microbend loss at 1550 nm
The problem to be solved by the present invention may therefore be regarded as to provide an optical fiber with reduced microbend loss at 1550 nm.
In this regard, Hebgen recognizes the importance of reducing "microbend-induced intensity losses" - see Hebgen (¶ 0105): "The primary coating is especially important in dissipating stresses that arise due to the microbends that the optical fiber encounters when deployed in a cable. The microbending stresses transmitted to the glass fiber need to be minimized because microbending stresses create local perturbations in the refractive index profile of the glass fiber. The local refractive index perturbations lead to intensity losses for the light transmitted through the glass fiber. By dissipating stresses, the primary coating minimizes microbend-induced intensity losses."
Hebgen is silent on any particular value of a microbend loss at 1550 nm. Given exemplary values of a microbend loss at 1550 nm, all examples in Bickham (Table in col. 24) have a microbend loss at 1550 nm (called "wire drum attenuation" there) less than 2.143 dB/km (Ex. 9) down to 0.008 dB/km (Ex. 14). The claimed values of the microbend loss at 1550 nm are therefore well within the reach of the skilled person, who has always the motivation in reducing losses in optical fibers. Therefore, taking Hebgen as the closest prior art in combination with Bickham, the skilled person would, with a little of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed optical fiber without any inventive skills. Even if the "coating surrounding and directly adjacent to the outer cladding region" of claim 1 were interpreted as an outer (e.g. secondary), optical fibers having an outer coating radius less than or equal to 110 µm are amongst well- known available optical fibers. Moreover, Molin indicates the obviousness of having a primary coating being less than an outer radius of 110 µm (e.g., see Molin ¶ 0095).
Given the closest prior art Hebgen, either taken alone or in combination with Bickham, the additional features introduced by dependent claims 2-21 are either disclosed by Hebgen or Bickham, or regarded minor constructional details and merely some of several straightforward possibilities from which the skilled person would select, in accordance with circumstances, without the exercise of inventive skill. There appears to be no surprising or synergetic effect resulting from the implementation of any of these additional features.
Thus claim 1 is rejected under the Hebgen and Bickham combination with obviousness evidenced by Molin (herein may be simply referred to as: Hebgen-Bickham-Molin).
Regarding claim 2, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the core region is a segmented core region comprising an inner core region and an outer core region surrounding and directly adjacent to the inner core region, the inner core region having a radius ra in a range from 0.5 µm to 3.5 µm [thus rendering the claimed “0.5 µm to 4.0 µm” as obvious at least via Obviousness of Ranges MPEP §2144.05; Hebgen claim 4] and comprising the maximum relative refractive index ∆1ₘₐₓ, the outer core region comprising the radius r1 and having a minimum relative refractive index ∆1min in a range from -0.40% to -0.10% [thus rendering the claimed “-0.40% to -0.20%” as obvious at least via Obviousness of Ranges MPEP §2144.05; Hebgen claim 4].
Thus claim 2 is rejected.
Regarding claim 3, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 2 (see above), wherein the inner core region comprises a relative refractive index profile defined by an α-profile with a value of a less than 10 and the outer core region comprises a relative refractive index profile defined by an α-profile with a value of a greater than 10 (e.g., Hebgen claim 5).
Thus claim 3 is rejected.
Regarding claims 4-6: Hebgen (¶ 0087) teaches "In one embodiment, the inner core region is silica glass doped with an alkali metal oxide and the outer core region is silica glass doped with F. In another embodiment, the inner core region is silica glass doped with an alkali and the outer core region is silica glass doped with F and Cl." [e.g., Hebgen ¶ 0087]
Regarding claim 7, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the trench cladding region surrounds and is directly adjacent to an offset cladding region (e.g., at ∆2 in Hebgen fig. 5B; ¶ 0053, 0080), the offset cladding region surrounding and directly adjacent to the core region (e.g., Hebgen fig. 5B), the offset cladding region having a radius r2 and a relative refractive index ∆2 greater than or equal to the relative refractive index ∆3 (e.g., Hebgen fig. 5B; claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the trench cladding region is directly adjacent to the core region [e.g., Hebgen Fig. 5A: core region 1 directly adjacent trench cladding 3; claim 12].
Regarding claim 9, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the trench cladding region has a thickness less than 16.0 µm [e.g., samples Hebgen Table 1; r3 - r1 for samples 2-7 is less than 16 µm].
Regarding claim 10, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the radius r3 is in a range from 13.0 µm to 22.0 µm (e.g., Hebgen Table 1 samples 2-4, 6-7 each have a radius in the range 13.0 µm to 22.0 µm ().
Regarding claim 11, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the relative refractive index ∆3 is in a range from -0.28% to -0.38% (e.g., samples 1-7 in Hebgen Table 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein a difference between the relative refractive index A4 and the relative refractive index A3 is in a range from 0.04 to 0.15% (e.g., All samples 1-7 in Hebgen Table 2)..
Regarding claim 13, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above). Further, Molin indicates the obviousness of wherein the outer radius of the coating is less than or equal to 90 µm (e.g., see Molin ¶ 0095; a primary coating of 180 microns diameter {in the obvious range defined by Molin; MPEP §2144.05} is 90 µm radius).
Regarding claim 14, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the optical fiber has a macrobend loss at 1550 nm, as determined by a mandrel wrap test using a mandrel with a diameter of 32 mm, less than 0.150 dB/turn (e.g., Hebgen figs. 7A-B).
Regarding claim 15, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the optical fiber has a macrobend loss at 1550 nm, as determined by a mandrel wrap test using a mandrel with a diameter of 50 mm, less than 0.010 dB/turn (e.g., Hebgen fig. 7A; fig. 7B #’s 92, 94).
Regarding claim 16, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the optical fiber has a macrobend loss at 1550 nm, as determined by a mandrel wrap test using a mandrel with a diameter of 60 mm, less than 0.0030 dB/turn (e.g., Hebgen figs. 7A-B).
Regarding claim 17, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above). Further, the microbend loss at 1550 nm is less than 1.5 dB/km (e.g., examples 1-8,11, 13-14 in Bickham Table in col. 24 have a microbend loss at 1550 nm {called "wire drum attenuation" there} as low as 0.008 dB/km (Ex. 14).
Regarding claim 18, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above). Hebgen-Bickham-Molin does not explicitly state wherein the optical fiber has an attenuation at 1550 nm less than 0.155 dB/km.
However, it was well-known for an optical fiber to have an attenuation at 1550 nm to be less than 0.155 dB/km. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an optical fiber to have an attenuation at 1550 nm to be less than 0.155 dB/km at least for the purpose of low loss in the optical fiber especially given that Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious all other claimed functional features of the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 19, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the optical fiber has a mode field diameter at 1550 nm in the range from 11.5 µm to 13.5 µm (e.g., samples 1-4 in Hebgen Table 3).
Regarding claim 20, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious the optical fiber of claim 1 (see above), wherein the optical fiber has an effective area at 1550 nm greater than 120 µm2 (Hebgen ¶ 0149; samples 5-7 in Hebgen Table 3).
Regarding claim 21, Hebgen-Bickham-Molin renders as obvious wherein the optical fiber has an effective area at 1550 nm greater than 125 µm2 (Hebgen ¶ 0149; samples 5-7 in Hebgen Table 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. 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 Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874