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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “changes abruptly” in Claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abruptly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The indefinite nature of the term “changes abruptly” makes it impossible to evaluate whether a given bottom portion of a refractive index profile anticipates the claim as written.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0031761 to Bookbinder et al. (hereinafter “US1”).
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical fiber (see Figs 4-5) comprising:
a core portion (1);
a side core layer (2) surrounding a periphery of the core portion; and
a cladding portion (3) surrounding a periphery of the side core layer, wherein
Δ1 >ΔClad >Δ2 and 0 >Δ2 are satisfied where Δ1 is an average maximum relative refractive-index difference of the core portion to an average refractive index of the cladding portion, Δ2 is a relative refractive-index difference of an average refractive index of the side core layer, and ΔClad is a relative refractive-index difference of an average refractive index of the cladding portion to pure quartz glass (see Figs 4-5, [0076], and Table 5),
Δ2 is -0.2% or more and less than 0% (see Figs 4-5 and Table 5),
2a is 8 μm or more and 10 μm or less (see Fig 5 and Table 5), where a core diameter of the core portion is 2a, and
a refractive index profile of the side core layer includes a bottom portion (Δ2MIN) where a refractive index is lower than that of other regions of the side core layer (see Figs 4-5).
US1 does not describe:
Δ1 is 0.35% or more and 0.45% or less (US1 describes Δ1 as 0.34%, see Table 5), or
2b is 35 μm or more and 45 μm or less, where an outer diameter of the side core layer is 2b (US1 describes 2b as 32 μm, see Table 5)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the fiber of US1 having the claimed properties or dimensions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a desired fiber for a specific implementation.
Such an obvious fiber in view of US1 would have:
a distance of a position of lowest refractive index in the bottom portion from a center of the core portion is a + (b-a)/1.55 μm or less.
Regarding the further limitations of Claims 3, 6, and 9, US1 does not describe:
an absolute value of ΔB is 0.03% or more and 0.07% or less when ΔB is a relative refractive-index difference of the lowest refractive index of the bottom portion to the average refractive index of the side core layer (US1 describes ΔB = 0.1, see Table 5),
a MAC value being a value obtained by dividing a mode field diameter at a wavelength of 1,310 nm by a cable cutoff wavelength is 7.0 or more and 7.2 or less (US1 describes a MAC value of 7.9 based on the values of Table 5), or
a macrobending loss of the optical fiber at a wavelength of 1,550 nm is 0.03 dB or less when the optical fiber is wound by 10 turns with a diameter of 30 mm (US1 describes such macrobending loss as .05 dB).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the fiber of US1 having the claimed properties or dimensions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a desired fiber for a specific implementation.
Regarding Claim 4, the obvious fiber in view of US1 would have a distance of the position of the lowest refractive index in the bottom portion from the center of the core portion is a + (b-a) /1.8 μm or more (see Table 5).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 describes a mode field diameter at a wavelength of 1,310 nm is 8.6 μm or more and 9.5 μm or less (see Table 5).
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes the core portion includes chlorine (see Table 5).
Regarding Claim 8, US1 describes a transmission loss of the optical fiber at a wavelength of 1,550 nm is 0.35 dB/km or less (see Table 5).
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes various optical fibers with side core portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874