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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 8-12 in the reply received 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from consideration. The addition of claims 13-19 is acknowledged. Claims 13-19 have the same subject matter as contained in original claims 1-7, which are restrictable for the reasons presented in the restriction requirement of 10/20/2025. Therefore claims 13-19 are as withdrawn as they are drawn to the non-elected invention and the restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/13/2021. A certified copy of the JP2021-115656 application was received 01/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/23/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
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.
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.
Claims 9-11 are 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 claims 9 and 10, the claims respectively recite “…wherein the optical waveguide region is a region of at least twice or less a core diameter” and “…wherein the optical waveguide region is a region of at least three times or less a core diameter”. The claims both appear to be directed towards one or more relationship(s) between the dimensions of the optical waveguide region with respect to the diameter of the core, but it is unclear which dimension(s) of the optical waveguide region is/are to be considered, and what overall relationship(s) the limitations referenced above are respectively drawn to. The claims are indefinite because there is a great deal of confusion regarding their intended meanings.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner will interpret claim 9 as stating that the diameter of the waveguide region is less than twice the diameter of the core, and claim 10 as stating that the diameter of the waveguide region is less than three times the diameter of the core.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites the limitations "…is added to the material constituting the optical waveguide region…" and “…is added to the material constituting the outer cladding…” in lines 3 and 4-5 respectively. However, neither claim 11 nor claim 9 (on which claim 11 depends) introduce one or more materials associated with claim elements. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner’s note, for the purposes of further examination, examiner will interpret claim 11 as stating that the listed elements/oxides are added to “a material” (for each instance of the two instances referenced above).
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett (US 20110211797 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Bennett discloses an optical fiber formed to include a core (Bennett/Fig1/Core 12), a surrounding cladding surrounding a periphery of the core (Fig1/Surrounding cladding 14), and an outer cladding surrounding the surrounding cladding (Fig1/Surrounding cladding 16), wherein a maximum compressive stress of an optical waveguide region including at least the core (Figs1&3/Optical waveguide region [Tubular region along fiber, centered on fiber, and with a radius of 110 microns]) is 100 MPa or more (Fig3/[Maximum compressive stress between -100 MPa and -200 MPa]).
With regards to claim 9, Bennett discloses the optical fiber according to claim 8, wherein the optical waveguide region is a region of at least twice or less a core diameter (Table 3; Fig 3; [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]).
With regards to claim 10, Bennett discloses the optical fiber according to claim 8, wherein the optical waveguide region is a region of at least three times or less a core diameter (Table 3; Fig 3; [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]).
With regards to claim 11, Bennett 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 the material constituting the optical waveguide region (Paragraph 19/Lines 8-16/“…alkali metals…”; [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]), and wherein at least one of germanium oxide, aluminum oxide, and boron oxide is added to the material constituting the outer cladding (Claim 5; [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]).
With regards to claim 12, Bennett 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.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
[Bennett] (US 20210356661 A1) [Figs1&8]
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