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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,160,941 to Yang et al.
In regards to claims 1 and 3, Yang recites a unitary optical fibre ribbon (Figures 2 & 3; 10) comprising: a plurality of optical fibres (1) sandwiched between a plurality of layers (15 & 16) of resin (Column 4, Lines 48-52), where the plurality of layers of resin have two or more flat regions (19a & 19b) and at least one split-inducing region (11a & 11b), where the at least one split-inducing region is positioned between one or more pairs of adjacent optical fibres, where the unitary optical fibre ribbon is fractured at the at least one split-inducing region. Yang further recites where the plurality of optical fibres has a first pitch (D1) and a second pitch (D2) such that the first pitch (D1) is not equal to the second pitch (D2) (Column 5, Lines 8-14). Although Yang does not recite the unitary optical fibre ribbon is fractured at the at least one split-inducing region by application of an external force in the range of 0.1 Newton to 0.5 Newton, Yang teaches the claimed optical fiber ribbon structure and the claimed physical characteristics of the optical fiber ribbon structure. Furthermore, Applicant teaches in the Specification, the resin material to be a UV thermoset material. [00011]. Yang further recites the resin layers to be a thermosettable resin being UV cured (Column 4, Lines 48-52). Since Yang teaches claimed structural features, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen an external force in the range of 0.1 Newton to 0.5 Newton in order to allow the user to separate the optical fiber ribbon while protecting the integrity of the optical fibers.
It is further noted, the burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of these functional characteristics. (See MPEP 2112.01). The Examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of performing the claimed functions, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties or perform the claimed functions is essential.
In regards to claims 2, 4, 9 and 10, Yang does not expressly recite the at least one split-inducing region is defined by (i) a depth that is in a range of 60 micrometres (μm) to 200 μm, (ii) a radius of curvature in a range of 0.01 millimetres (mm) to 0.04 mm, a ratio of the first pitch (D1) and the second pitch (D2) is less than 0.95, the plurality of layers of resin has a top thickness and a bottom thickness, wherein the top thickness is different from the bottom thickness, and a strength of the unitary optical fibre ribbon at the at least one split-inducing region is at least 7% less than a strength of the unitary optical fibre ribbon at two or more flat regions. However, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to use such features for the purpose of providing an optical fiber ribbon capable of being split by a user to separate the optical fiber ribbon while protecting the integrity of the optical fibers. Furthermore, since Yang teaches claimed structural features, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen the at least one split-inducing region is defined by (i) a depth that is in a range of 60 micrometres (μm) to 200 μm, (ii) a radius of curvature in a range of 0.01 millimetres (mm) to 0.04 mm, a ratio of the first pitch (D1) and the second pitch (D2) is less than 0.95, the plurality of layers of resin has a top thickness and a bottom thickness, wherein the top thickness is different from the bottom thickness, and a strength of the unitary optical fibre ribbon at the at least one split-inducing region is at least 7% less than a strength of the unitary optical fibre ribbon at two or more flat regions in order to allow the user to separate the optical fiber ribbon while protecting the integrity of the optical fibers.
It is further noted, the burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of these functional characteristics. (See MPEP 2112.01). The Examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of performing the claimed functions, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties or perform the claimed functions is essential.
In regards to claim 5, Yang recites the plurality of layers of resin is defined by (i) first layers of a first resin disposed over first and second sets, respectively, of the plurality of sets and (ii) a second layer of a second resin disposed on the arranged plurality of sets over the first layers, where the first resin and the second resin have identical composition. (Figure 1; steps 2 and 4)
In regards to claim 6, Yang recites the first layers have a first curing level and the second layer has a second curing level (Figure 1; wet-on-dry method; Column 4, Line 61). Although the second curing level is 5% to 30% more than the first curing level in absolute terms is not expressly disclosed, Yang does teach each prior resin layer to be at least partially thermoset before being coating with another layer. (Column 4, Lines 58-60) The degree of curing for each resin layer as claimed would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since selecting the degree of curing would be based on the properties of the selected resins in order to provide flexibility and ease of use and separation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the second curing level is 5% to 30% more than the first curing level in absolute terms.
In regards to claim 7, Yang recites the first layers is partially cured and the second layer is fully cured.
In regards to claim 8, Yang recites the at least one split-inducing region has a coat thickness that varies along a length of the unitary optical fibre ribbon (Column 5, Lines 14-19; discontinuous along the score line).
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874