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 .
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been considered and entered.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action received 02/13/2026 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 have been considered but are moot in view of modified grounds of rejection.
Examiner’s note: An additional Bennett reference is relied upon in this office action. The US 20110211797 A1 publication of Bennett introduced in the previous office action will be referred to as Bennett [1] and the reference introduced in the instant office action will be referred to as Bennett [2].
With regards to the rejection of claim 8 in view of Bennett [1], Applicant has argued that “…Bennett does not disclose wherein a maximum compressive stress of an optical waveguide region including at least the core is 100 MPa or more…” because “…Table 3 lists the characteristics of the optical fibers related to FIG. 3. Since FIG. 3 corresponds to a plot of the radial position of the optical fiber shown in FIG. 2 which has only two layers, Table 3 does not show the characteristics of a three-layer optical fiber…”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Bennett [1] states that the optical fiber of figure 2 of Bennett [1] “…can also be coated with one or more coating layers (not shown)…” (Bennett [1]/Paragraph 16). Thus, Bennett [1] does disclose the optical fiber of figure 2 as having 3 layers.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With regards to claim 10, claim 8 on which claim 10 depends recites the limitation “…wherein a diameter of the waveguide region is equal to or less than twice a diameter of the core…”. Claim 10 then recites the limitation “…wherein the diameter of the waveguide region is equal to or less than three times the diameter of the core…”. Claim 10 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 8 because a value that is equal to or less than double a second value is necessarily also equal to or less than triple the second value. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 20 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.
With regards to claim 20, the claim recites “…wherein the optical waveguide region is a region up to a radius in which r x P(r) is less than 1/100 with respect to the peak value of r x P(r) when the power distribution in the radial (r) direction of the base mode of the transmitted light is P(r)…”. The claim explicitly defines “…P(r)…” as a power distribution and “…(r)…” as a direction of the base mode of the transmitted light, but does not define “…r…”. Furthermore, the operator “…x…” is commonly understood to denote a cross product when implemented in the context of direction. Thus, it is unclear
if P(r) is intended to mean power as a function of radius, power multiplied by the direction of the base mode of the transmitted light, or some other meaning;
whether or not “…r x P(r)…” is to be interpreted as a cross product of r and P(r) (since “…r…” is not defined and “…(r)…” is defined as a direction); and
whether the limitation “…r x P(r) is less than 1/100 with respect to the peak value of r x P(r)…” is stating that r x P(r) is less than 0.01 under a particular condition, that r x P(r) is less than 0.01 times a peak value of r x P(r)) under a particular condition, or some other meaning.
The claim is indefinite because the current limitations beget confusion regarding the scope of the claim.
Examiners note: Claim 20 has not been further treated on the merits because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim. This is NOT an indication that the claims are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. The scope of the claim is unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP § 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph: “… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett [1] (US 20110211797 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Bennett [1] discloses an optical fiber formed to include a core (Bennett [1]/Fig2/Core 12’), a surrounding cladding surrounding a periphery of the core (Fig2/Surrounding cladding 16’), and an outer cladding surrounding the surrounding cladding (Paragraph 16/Lines 6-9), wherein a maximum compressive stress of an optical waveguide region including at least the core is 100 MPa or more (Figs2-3/Optical waveguide region [Tubular region along fiber, centered on fiber, and with a radius of 110 microns]), and wherein a diameter of the waveguide region is equal to or less than twice a diameter of the core (Figs2-3; Table 3 [Core diameter of 190 microns]).
With regards to claim 10, Bennett [1] discloses the optical fiber according to claim 8, wherein the diameter of the waveguide region is equal to or less than three times the diameter of the core (Figs2-3/Optical waveguide region [Tubular region along fiber, centered on fiber, and with a radius of 110 microns]; Table 3 [Core diameter of 190 microns].
With regards to claim 12, Bennett [1] discloses the optical fiber according to claim 8. Bennett does not explicitly disclose the act of applying a tensile stress to a part of the outer cladding. However, the limitation "…wherein a tensile stress is applied to a part of the outer cladding" is an intended use of the optical fiber. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Claims 8, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett [2] (US 11733453 B2).
With regards to claim 8, Bennett [2] discloses an optical fiber formed to include a core (Bennett [2]/Fig2/Core [Elements 10, 52, and 54]), a surrounding cladding surrounding a periphery of the core (Fig2/Surrounding cladding 56), and an outer cladding surrounding the surrounding cladding (Fig2/Outer cladding 58), wherein a maximum compressive stress of an optical waveguide region including at least the core is 100 MPa or more (Figs2&8a/Optical waveguide region [Tubular region along fiber, centered on fiber, and with a radius of 15 microns]), and wherein a diameter of the waveguide region is equal to or less than twice a diameter of the core (Fig8a; Table 1 [2*(2*r2) = ~40 microns]).
With regards to claim 11, Bennett [2] discloses the optical fiber according to the optical fiber according to claim 8 wherein at least one of an alkali metal element, an alkaline earth metal element, a halogen element, and phosphorus is added to a material constituting the optical waveguide region (Figs2&8a; Column 27/Lines 21-22), and wherein at least one of germanium oxide, aluminum oxide, and boron oxide is added to the material constituting the outer cladding (Column 10/Lines 10-11; Column 24/Lines 24-27).
With regards to claim 21 Bennett [2] discloses the optical fiber according to claim 8, wherein the diameter of the core is 10 microns or less (Table 1 [r2 value for Ex. 1]).
Conclusion
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 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 Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights