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
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on January 9, 2024, and July 2, 2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Six sheets of drawings were filed on January 9, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Inventorship
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites—The optical fiber according to claim 1, not comprising an OD group.—is unclear. The label “OD group” is not defined in the claim. The Specification also does not provide any clarity to what the term “OD group”. Paras [0024], [0066], and Table 4 references the term “OD group” but do not define the term. Therefore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bound of claim 9. For examination purposes, the examiner shall consider the lack of teaching of the phrase “OD group” meets the limitation of –not comprising an OD group--.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US 2019/0324195 A1, herein “Sakuma”) in view of the Tamura et al. (US 2017/0108642 A1, herein “Tamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma discloses an optical fiber (1 in Fig. 1) made of silica-based glass (Para [0014]), comprising: a core (10), and a cladding circumscribing the core (20 circumscribing core 10), wherein a refractive index of the core is larger than a refractive index of the cladding (Para [0014] disclosed the cladding has a smaller refractive index than core which means the core refractive is larger than the cladding), the core (10) includes a first core (11) having a central axis (Para [0028]) and a second core (12) circumscribing the first score (12 is circumscribing 11), the core includes either or both of an alkali metal element and alkaline each metal element (Para [0006]).
Sakuma does not disclose a mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the first core is higher than mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the second core, and a total value of mean value of mass fraction of chlorine and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second is 5000 ppm or less.
Tamura teaches a fiber made of silica glass (Para [0019]) having a core 10, a cladding 20, wherein the core has a first core 11 and second core 12, and the second core enclosing the first core (Para [0019]). The 1st core has fluorine values ranging from 0-20000 ppm (Para [0031] and Table IV), and wherein fluorine in the second core having values 0-20000 (Para [0025] and Table II). In example 2 of both Table IV and Table II show fluorine in the 2nd core can be 500 ppm, while the fluorine in the 1st core is 600 ppm. Thus, fluorine values meet the limitations of “a mass fraction of fluorine in the first core is higher than mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the second core” as recited. Further, Table III teaches the second core can have mass fraction of chlorine between 2000-14000 pp, (Table III Para [0028]), while the mass fraction of fluorine is 0-20000 ppm (Table II and Para [0025]). Using example 2 in Table II fluorine in the second core will be 500 ppm, while example 2 of Table III indicates a chlorine in the second core is 4500. Thus, meeting the limitations of “a total value of mean value of mass fraction of chlorine and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second is 5000 ppm or less (because 500 ppm from fluorine + 4500 ppm from chlorine in the second core produce a combine value of 5000 ppm). 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 chlorine and fluorine mass fraction values profiles of the second core in order to optimize the attenuation or loss properties of the fiber by changing its relative refractive index relative to the cladding and the 1st core (Tamura: Paras [0020], [0026], and [0032] along with Table II and Table III loss profiles).
Claim 2, Sakuma in view of Tamura (herein “Sakuma / Tamura”) teach the optical fiber according to claim 1, wherein Sakuma discloses the mean value of the mass fraction of chlorine in the first core is 10ppm or greater and 500 ppm or less (Fig. 3: examples D-I, See Column which teaches the inner core or first core having a CL concentration ppm by mass between 100-500).
Claim 3, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 1, wherein Sakuma discloses the mean value of the mass fraction of chlorine in the second core is 500 ppm or greater and 3000 ppm or less (Fig. 3: see examples A-C and F-K, wherein the inner core or first core having a CL concentration ppm by mass between 500-1600).
Claims 4 and 5, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 1.
Sakuma does not teach wherein the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the first core is 500 ppm or greater and 4000 ppm or less; and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second core is 500 ppm or greater and 4000 ppm or less.
Tamura does teach the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the first core is 500 ppm or greater and 4000 ppm or less (See Table IV example 2 and 3); and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second core is 500 ppm or greater and 4000 ppm or less (Table II: example 2 and 3). 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 mass fraction of the first core and second core with the above fluorine levels in concentration in order to optimize the attenuation profile of the fiber (Tamura: Para [0026] and [0031]).
Claim 6, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 1, wherein Sakuma discloses a total mean value of mass fractions of the alkali metal element and the alkaline earth metal element in the core is 0.2 ppm or greater and 200 ppm or less (Para [0019] discuss the value as “alkali metal group” to be 0.2 ppm or greater and 200 ppm or less; wherein Sakuma defines “alkali metal group” to mean “alkali metal element and the alkaline-earth-metal element” as indicated in Para [0002]).
Claim 7, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 6, wherein Sakuma discloses wherein the total mean value of mass fractions of the alkali metal element and the alkaline earth metal element in the core is 30 ppm or greater (Para [0019] discuss the value as “alkali metal group” to be 0.2 ppm or greater and 200 ppm or less; wherein Sakuma defines “alkali metal group” to mean “alkali metal element and the alkaline-earth-metal element” as indicated in Para [0002]).
Claim 8, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 1, wherein Sakuma discloses the core includes any one of sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, and calcium as the alkali metal element or the alkaline earth metal element (Para [0019]).
Claim 9, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 1, wherein Sakuma discloses not comprising an OD group (the entire disclosure of Sakuma does not mention any chemical or material relating to “OD group”).
Claim 10, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 1. Sakuma does not teach a difference between a mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the cladding and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second core is 8400 ppm or greater.
Tamura teaches a difference between a mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the cladding and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second core is 8400 ppm or greater (Table II and Para [0035]). Tamura disclosed the mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the cladding is (20000 ppm Para [0035]); and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second core between 0-20000 ppm with examples such has (Table 2: 0, 500, 2000, 5000, 10000). These examples will yield a difference of 20,000 – 0 = 20K ppm in fluorine, 20000 – 500 = 19500 ppm in fluorine, 20000-2000 = 18000 ppm in fluorine, 20000-5000 = 5000 ppm in fluorine, 20000-10000 = 10000 ppm in fluorine. 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 cladding and second core to have a difference between a mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the cladding and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second core is 8400 ppm or greater in order to optimize attenuation profile of the fiber (Para [0026]).
Claims 11 and 12, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 1. Sakuma / Tamura do not teach wherein the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the cladding is 8000 ppm or greater 9000ppm or less; and 8000 ppm or greater and 13000 ppm or less.
Tamura teaches the general teaching of fluorine being doped in silica glass can decrease the refractive index (Para [0020]) and wherein when chlorine is dope in silica glass the refractive index can increase (Para [0020]). Based on these teachings (Para [0020]); one of ordinary skill may choose values of fluorine doping concentration levels to be between 8000 or greater and 13000 ppm or less for the doping concentration of the cladding and using values of fluorine of second core (Table II: example 1-3) will produce a difference 8000 ppm – 9000ppm (i.e. 9000 ppm for cladding and 500 ppm for second core will produce a difference of 8500) for the purpose of optimizing the confinement. If the 1st core and 2nd core have substantially high chlorine or a high enough refractive index difference to transmit light in the core region 11 and 12, one would not need the 20k ppm of fluorine as taught by Tamura to achieve operational confinement. 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 mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the cladding to be 8000 ppm or greater and 13000 ppm or less or 8000 ppm or greater and 9000 ppm or less in order to reducing material cost of fluorine doping while still achieve functional confinement, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim 13, Sakuma discloses an optical fiber preform (1, Fig. 1) made of silica-based glass (Para [0014], and [0030]-[0031]), comprising: a core portion (10), and a cladding portion circumscribing the core portion (20 circumscribing 10), wherein a refractive index of the core portion is larger than a refractive index of the cladding portion (Para [0014] disclosed the cladding has a smaller refractive index than core which means the core refractive is larger than the cladding), the core portion (10) includes a first core portion (11) having a central axis (Para [0028]) and a second core portion (12) circumscribing the first core portion (12 is circumscribing 11), the core portion includes either or both of an alkali metal element and alkaline each metal element (Para [0006]).
Sakuma does not teach a mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the first core is higher than mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the second core, and a total value of mean value of mass fraction of chlorine and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second is 5000 ppm or less.
Tamura teaches a fiber made of silica glass (Para [0019]) having a core 10, a cladding 20, wherein the core has a first 11 and second core 12 enclosing the first core (Para [0019]). Tamura disclosed wherein the 2nd core has fluorine values 1st core ranging from 0-20000 ppm (See Para [0031] Table IV), and wherein fluorine in the second core having values 0-20000 (See Para [0025] Table II). In example 2 of both Table IV and Table II the fluorine in the 2nd core can be 500, while the fluorine in the 1st core is 600. Thus, fluorine values meet the limitations of “a mass fraction of fluorine in the first core is higher than mean value of a mass fraction of fluorine in the second core” as recited. Further Table III teaches the second core can have mass fraction of chlorine between 2000-14000 pp, (Table III Para [0028]), while the mass fraction of fluorine is 0-20000 ppm (See Table II Para [0025]). Using example 2 in Table II fluorine in the second core will be 500, while example 2 of Table III indicates a chlorine in the second core is 4500. Thus, meeting the limitations of “a total value of mean value of mass fraction of chlorine and the mean value of the mass fraction of fluorine in the second is 5000 ppm or less (because 500 ppm from fluorine + 4500 ppm from chlorine in the second core produce a combine value of 5000 ppm). 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 chlorine and fluorine mass fraction values profiles of the second core in order to optimize the attenuation or loss properties of fiber by changing its relative refractive index relative to cladding and 1st core (Tamura’s Paras [0020], [0026], and [0032] along with Table II and Table III loss profiles).
Claim 14, Sakuma / Tamura teach the optical fiber according to claim 13, wherein Sakuma discloses the mean value of the mass fraction of chlorine in the first core is 1000 ppm or less (Fig. 3: examples D-I, See Column “Inner core having a CL concentration A [ppm by mass] between 100-500).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892: C, Haruna teaches an optical fiber having two cores wherein the fiber is doped with chlorine and fluorine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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 A. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights