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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/28/23, 8/7/25, 12/2/25, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a).
Specification
3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2015/0177456 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tanaka et al. disclose a plastic optical fiber comprising: a core (the inner layer functions as a core layer [0055]); and a clad disposed on an outer circumference of the core (the outer layer functions as a clad [0055]), wherein the core includes a first resin ( fluorinated polymer [0052]), the clad includes a second resin ([0167]), the first resin has a first glass transition temperature Tgi of 120°C or higher ([0166]), the second resin has a second glass transition temperature Tg2 of 120°C or higher ([0166]) and a minimum of the curvature radius R is defined as a curvature radius at which a crack does not occur (no crack [0038]) in a bent portion of the plastic optical fiber, the minimum is 5 mm or less ([0216]).
Tanaka et al. do not explicitly disclose the plastic optical fiber bent once 180 degrees at 25°C has a curvature radius R.
However, the plastic optical fiber bent once 180 degrees at 25°C 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 Tanaka 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 claim 2, Tanaka et al. disclose the plastic optical fiber, wherein the minimum of the curvature radius R is less than 5 mm ([0216]).
With respect to claim 5, Tanaka et al. disclose the plastic optical fiber, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first resin and the second resin is a fluorine-containing resin ([0052]).
With respect to claims 6-9, Tanaka et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the fluorine-containing resin includes a fluorine-containing polymer including a structural unit (A) represented by the following formula (1), (2), (3), (4).
However, the fluorine-containing resin includes a fluorine-containing polymer including a structural unit (A) represented by the following formula (1), (2), (3), (4) are considered to be obvious to provide high performance 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 Tanaka et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of providing higher performance of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 10, Tanaka et al. disclose the plastic optical fiber, further comprising a reinforcing layer disposed on an outer circumference of the clad (abstract).
With respect to claim 11, Tanaka et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except a dimension retention rate of the plastic optical fiber after exposure to 105 C for 250 hours is 95% or more, where the dimension retention rate is a ratio of a length of the plastic optical fiber after the exposure to 105°C for 250 hours to a length of the plastic optical fiber before the exposure to 105°C for 250 hours.
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 Tanaka to form the above features, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
With respect to claim 12, Tanaka et al. disclose the plastic optical fiber, wherein a material of the core has a glass transition temperature of 105°C or higher ([0166]).
With respect to claim 13, Tanaka et al. disclose a hybrid cable comprising the plastic optical fiber (abstract).
8. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (as cited above) in view of Okada (JP-2020187207-A).
With respect to claims 3-4, Tanaka et al. disclose a plastic optical fiber comprising: a core (the inner layer functions as a core layer [0055]); and a clad disposed on an outer circumference of the core (the outer layer functions as a clad [0055]), wherein the core includes a first resin ( fluorinated polymer [0052]), the clad includes a second resin ([0167]), the first resin has a first glass transition temperature Tgi of 120°C or higher ([0166]), the second resin has a second glass transition temperature Tg2 of 120°C or higher ([0166]).
Tanaka et al. do not explicitly disclose a fiber structure composed of the core and the clad has a birefringence of 2.0 x 104 or more.
However, Okada teaches an optical device including a fiber structure composed of the core and the clad has a birefringence of 2.0 x 104 or more (abstract). 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 Tanaka et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Okada) for the purpose of providing the plastic optical fiber in which cracks are suppressed (specification).
9. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (as cited above) in view of Tiago (JP-2020-71432-A).
With respect to claims 14-15, Tanaka et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except a cable including the plastic optical fiber; a first connector attached to a first end portion of the cable and including a first converter that converts an electrical signal into an optical signal; and a second connector attached to a second end portion of the cable and including a second converter that converts an optical signal into an electrical signal.
However, Tiago (figure 8) teaches an optical device including a cable (20) including the plastic optical fiber; a first connector (10A) attached to a first end portion of the cable and including a first converter that converts an electrical signal into an optical signal; and a second connector (10B) attached to a second end portion of the cable and including a second converter that converts an optical signal into an electrical signal (figure 8). 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 Tanaka et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Tiago) for the purpose of converting an optical signal to electric signal (abstract).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakanishi (US-10539746-B2) and Sugizaki (US 7787732 B2) disclose an optical fiber.
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