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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on October 21, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The amendment to claim 1 requires a relative refractive index difference of the average refractive index of the center core with respective to a refractive index of pure silica is equal to or higher than -0.10% and equal to or lower than -0.01%. This feature is not shown in the drawings. Figs. 2A-2C show refractive index profiles with the average refractive index of the center core being positive, not negative. Therefore, the feature of a relative refractive index difference of the average refractive index of the center core with respective to a refractive index of pure silica is equal to or higher than -0.10% and equal to or lower than -0.01% must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following reasons(s):
Regarding claim 14, the claim does not further limit claim 1. Claim 14 requires a relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core with respect to a refractive index of pure silica glass is equal to or higher than -0.15% and equal to or lower than 0.17% which is broader than the range recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 have been amended into independent claim 1 and therefore, claim 15 should be cancelled as it does not serve to further limit claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim does not further limit claim 1. Claim 16 requires a relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core with respect to a refractive index of pure silica glass is equal to or higher than 0.02% and equal to or lower than 0.13% which is outside of the range recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim does not further limit claim 1. Claim 16 requires a relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core with respect to a refractive index of pure silica glass is equal to or higher than -0.50% and equal to or lower than -0.13% which is outside of the range recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 20-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to an optical fiber comprising a relative refractive index of the core with respect to pure silica, classified in G02B6/03627.
II. Claims 20-22, drawn to an optical fiber comprising a core portion, a cladding portion and a coating layer, classified in G02B6/02395.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions II and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the invention of group II does not require a transmission loss at a wavelength of 1550 nm is equal to or less than 0.18 dB/km. The subcombination has separate utility such as an optical fiber without a coating layer.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 20-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borel et al. (US 2016/0109651 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Borel discloses an optical fiber (Figs. 1a-1b) comprising: a core portion (12); and a cladding portion (20) configured to surround an outer periphery of the core portion, the cladding portion having a refractive index lower than a maximum refractive index of the core portion (see Fig. 1b), and containing a dopant to reduce the refractive index (paragraphs 0010, 0031), wherein the core portion includes a center core (12) in which an average refractive index is maximized in the optical fiber (see Fig. 1b), a relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core with respect to an average refractive index of the cladding portion is equal to or higher than 0.20% and equal to or lower than 0.50% (Fig. 1b shows the relative refractive index difference between center core 12 and cladding region 20 greater than 0.20% and lower than 0.50%), an outer diameter of the cladding portion is equal to or larger than 70 μm and equal to or smaller than 120 μm (Fig. 1b shows radius of cladding region 20 is 40 μm), and a transmission loss at a wavelength of 1550 nm is equal to or less than 0.18 dB/km (paragraphs 0033, 0048, claim 17).
Still regarding claim 1, Borel teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the cable cutoff wavelength. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed cable cutoff wavelength in order to ensure single-mode transmission at the operating wavelength range, and since it 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Still regarding claim 1, Borel teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core. However, Borel discloses in paragraph 0051 that co-doping of Cl and F in the core region results in the core having a lower refractive index than a pure silica core fiber. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core in order to reduce latency of signal transmission and signal loss, and since it 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Borel discloses an effective core area at the wavelength of 1550 nm is equal to or smaller than 150 μm2 in claim 18.
Regarding claim 3, Borel discloses the effective core area at the wavelength of 1550 nm is equal to or larger than 50 μm2 in claim 18.
Regarding claim 4, Borel discloses at least a part of the cladding portion is made from silica glass including any one of fluorine and boron in paragraph 0031.
Regarding claim 5, Borel discloses the core portion is made of any one of pure silica glass and silica glass that includes one of chlorine, fluorine, germanium, potassium, and sodium (paragraph 0033), and includes a center core in which an average refractive index is maximized in the optical fiber in Fig. 1b.
Regarding claim 6, Borel discloses a coating layer (22) configured to surround an outer periphery of the cladding portion, wherein an outer diameter of the coating layer is equal to or smaller than 210 μm in Fig. 1b.
Regarding claim 7, Borel discloses the coating layer includes a primary layer configured to surround the outer periphery of the cladding portion, and a secondary layer configured to surround an outer periphery of the primary layer, and a thickness of the primary layer is equal to or larger than 10 μm in Fig. 1b (coating 22 can be interpreted as constituted of an inner layer equal to or larger than 10 μm and surrounded by a second outer layer).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Borel teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the normalized microbending loss. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to minimize normalized microbending loss in order to reduce losses resulting in a higher quality signal, and since it 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, measuring microbending loss using the sandpaper method is well-known and commonly used in the art of optical fibers, and as such, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use any test including by sandpaper for the purpose of accurately measuring the microbending loss.
Regarding claim 10, Borel teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the increase of the transmission loss due to the microbending loss. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed increase of the transmission loss due to the microbending loss in order to minimize losses resulting in a higher quality signal, and since it 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Borel discloses a refractive index profile is a step-index type in Fig. 1b.
Regarding claim 12, Borel discloses a refractive index profile is a W-shape type in Fig. 1b.
Regarding claim 13, Borel discloses a refractive index profile is a trench type in Fig. 1b.
Regarding claims 14-17, Borel teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core. However, Borel discloses a core having a positive refractive index relative to pure silica (Fig. 1b) as well as a negative refractive index relative to pure silica (see paragraph 0051 describing co-doping of Cl and F in the core region results in the core having a lower refractive index than a pure silica core fiber). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed relative refractive-index difference of the average refractive index of the center core in order to reduce latency of signal transmission and signal loss, and since it 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Borel discloses the transmission loss is equal to or lower than 0.175 dB/km in paragraph 0048 and claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that Borel does not recognize nor teach a negative refractive index of the core relative to pure silica. However, reference is made to paragraph 0051 in which Borel specifically states “co-doping of Cl and F in the core region of a low-loss optical fiber formed in accordance with the present invention results in creating a fiber with a lower refractive index than a pure silica core fiber.” Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Borel clearly and explicitly provides a teaching of a negative refractive index of the core relative to pure silica. Borel further states that such an optical fiber “exhibited a relatively low attenuation of 0.174 dB/km at a transmission wavelength of 1550 nm.” This shows Borel recognizes the refractive index of the core as a parameter to reduce attenuation of the optical fiber. Therefore, the application of In re Aller is indeed proper and the prima facie rejection is maintained.
Further, a fiber having a core with a negative refractive index relative to pure silica is known in the art, as evidenced by multiple references cited in the Notice of References Cited on July 21, 2025 and therefore on the record. U.S. Pat No. 8,315,495 B2 to Bickham et al., teaches a fiber wherein a relative refractive index of the average refractive index of the center core (14) with respective to pure silica is equal to or higher than -0.10% and equal to or lower than -0.01% in Figs. 1B and 11-17. U.S. Pat No. 7,929,818 B1 to Bickham et al., teaches a fiber wherein a relative refractive index of the average refractive index of the center core (14) with respective to pure silica is equal to or higher than -0.10% and equal to or lower than -0.01% in Fig. 1B. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to discover the optimum or workable ranges since the general conditions of the claim are disclosed by Borel.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 February 2, 2026