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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 2020/0257040 (“CHEN”) in view of US 2004/0228593 (“SUN”).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, CHEN teaches an optical fiber (6S) comprising: a core (10, 20); and a trench (30) disposed on an outer circumference of the core (FIG. 2B), wherein the core includes a first region (10) and a second region (20), the first region having a refractive index n1 (D1) decreasing in a direction from a center of the core toward an outer edge of the core (FIG. 3A), the second region being positioned on an outer circumference of the first region, the second region including the outer edge of the core (FIG. 2B), the second region having a refractive index n2 (D2) being constant, the refractive index n2 of the second region is equal to or lower than the refractive index n1 of the first region (FIG. 3A), a thickness of the second region is 3.5 μm or more and less than 4.4 μm (par. [0087]), and a refractive index n3 (D3) of the trench is lower than the refractive index n2 of the second region (FIG. 3A).
CHEN does not teach that the optical fiber is a plastic optical fiber. SUN teaches a similar optical fiber (See FIG. 8) that is a plastic optical fiber (pars. [0004], [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical fiber of CHEN so as to be a plastic optical fiber, as taught by SUN. The motivation would have been to utilize a well-known material for use in making optical fibers (pars. [0004], [0081]).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN teaches a numerical aperture (NA) of the plastic optical fiber is 0.190 or more and 0.235 or less (par. [0073]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, CHEN teaches an active optical cable comprising an optical cord and an optoelectronic hybrid module (FIGs. 4, 11; par. [0140]).
Regarding claims 2-5, CHEN in view of SUN renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. The additional limitations appear to involve mere optimization. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the optical fiber of CHEN in view of SUN as set forth in the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0066090 (“TANDON”) teaches a similar optical fiber (See Figs. 6, 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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 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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874