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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/24/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 is missing a period.
Claim 8 is missing some words in step a. and has a period in step b.
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 1-10 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 is vague and indefinite due to step e. “curing the resin coat” is unclear if this is referring to the partially cured resin coat that forms the sets of optical fibers or the subsequently disposed resin coat. The claims would benefit from identifying the distinct resin coats (for example, a first resin coat and a second resin coat).
The remaining claims are merely rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 6175677).
Claim 1:
Yang teaches a method for manufacturing multi-ribbon optical fiber in which at least two independent optical fiber ribbons are adjacently disposed in a common plane and surrounded by a common exterior sheath (1:5-13). In a first step, first and second optical fiber ribbon members are formed by providing a plurality of optical fibers in a planar array, coating with a resin, and curing the resin (3:33-45). In a second step, the multi-ribbon is formed by providing the first and second optical fiber ribbon members arranged in a plane, coating with a resin, and curing the resin (3:46-55). The first resin coating is partially cured (4:42-53). A split-inducing region is formed between ribbons (5:43-61).
Claim 2:
A particular optical fiber distance is set (Fig. 1a-1d).
Claim 5:
The optical fibers are sandwiched between the resin coat in the sense that they are completely surrounded by the resin coat (Fig. 1a, c).
Claim 6:
The score line does result in a reduction of thickness (Fig. 1a,c).
Claim 10:
Both first and second resin are UV curable acylates (3:30-32)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 3-4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 6175677).
Yang is discussed above but does not anticipate several details of the process such as time between curing, fiber set pitch, scoring dimensions, and degree of curing.
The time between curing is a function of web speed where faster speeds and shorter times are desired from an efficiency perspective but are limited by sufficient time spent in the coating zone to ensure complete coating and sufficient time spent in the curing zone to ensure the desired degree of curing.
The fiber set pitch is greater than the individual fiber pitch (Fig. 1a,b). The exact distance would have been selected to facilitate ease of separation without damaging the optical fibers.
The overall goal with the scoring is to enable easy separation without damaging the optical fibers. The shape and size of the scoring would have been obviously selected to achieve this goal.
Yang teaches a first coated resin is cured around 80%. When the second coated resin is cured (taken to be 100%) this results in a difference of 20%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Yang and arrive at particular process details for the reasons described above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 6175677) in view of Chalk (US 2012/0288246).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the environment in which the curing takes place. However, Chalk teaches curing an optical fiber ribbon (abstract) wherein the curing takes place in an environment where gases are supplied separately (i.e., heterogeneous) and includes oxygen in an amount of at least 1000 ppm [0023]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Yang in the environment taught by Chalk as a suitable method for manufacturing an optical fiber ribbon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of co-filed claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights