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 .
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites a “wavelength shifting fiber” with no supporting structure. Examiner is left to guess as to the structure that allows for the function of shifting wavelengths. It is unclear if the optical attenuation length itself shifts the wavelengths or what structure shifts the wavelength. Claims 2-12 are rejected on the basis of dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0118485 to Akari et al.
Akari discloses a wavelength shifting fiber comprising:
A plastic core (11); and
A coating (12) surrounding the plastic core, wherein the wavelength shifting fiber has an optical attenuation of about 500cm (paragraph 82 discloses an example of 416cm).
As to claims 5 and 10, the cladding has an outer diameter of 1mm and is therefore larger than the claimed 3um.
As to claim 6, the core material claimed is disclosed in paragraph 48.
As to claim 7, the cladding material claimed is disclosed in paragraph 50.
As to claim 8, organic materials may be used for the cladding (paragraph 51).
As to claim 9, fluorescent dopants are disclosed in paragraph 52.
Claims 13-20 are method claims that recite general drawing and manufacturing steps for the above structure. Since the structure is disclosed, such manufacturing steps would also be anticipated. Examiner notes that should this not be the case, a future restriction requirement may be proper.
Akari fails to disclose the optical attenuation length of at least 500cm. It is noted that the claims recite no specific structure, nor the degree of importance of this length. The prior art’s disclose of 416cm is “close” to the claimed 500cm and adjusting for the additional length would appear to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, claims 2-4 recite additional lengths. This value is a result effective variable and Akari discloses the need for the length to be greater than 300cm without setting any upper level boundaries. Certainly Akari allows for this possibility and selection of a length for the intended use would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akari as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6,577,802 to Chien.
Akari discloses the invention as claimed except for the use of antioxidants in the fiber core. It is noted that this material appears to be used in Applicant’s invention to aid in the manufacturing of the fiber.
Chien discloses the use of hydroxytoluene as a polymerization inhibitor to stabilize the fiber material (column 9, line 53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use an antioxidant such as taught by Chien in Akari to stabilize the core during manufacturing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,270,956 to Fujita et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874