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 . 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 2017/0010430 by LeBlanc in view of U.S. Patent 4,953,945 to Nishimura et al. and further in view of CN 104950409 A patent publication by Yang (copy and English translation thereof have been included).
Regarding claim 1, LeBlanc teaches a method for producing an optical fiber unit comprising the steps of: coating a plurality of optical fibers (204) with a silicone coating layer (206); placing at least an optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers that are coated by the silicone (206) in a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP, 212) and producing an optical composite unit (OCU) (204, 206, 212), wherein each optical fiber is completely imbedded in FRP (Fig. 2); coating the optical composite unit (OCU) with one or more layers of polymer (214, PEEK), and combining one or more optical composite unit (OCU) coated with the one or more layers of polymer to build an optical fiber unit (cable 200).
LeBlanc does not specify whether the coating layer (206) is a colored UV cured silicone or acrylic resin. Nishimura teaches coating optical fibers (1) with a peelable coating (2) formed of a UV curable silicone acrylate resins (see at least col. 4, para. 2). The peelable cured layer having a compression modulus of elasticity of at least 5 kg/mm2 but not exceeding 300 kg/mm2. This limitation on the compression modulus of the peelable cured coating layer is effective in improving the lateral pressure resisting properties, thereby preventing the occurrence of increased transmission loss due to external force, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LeBlanc’s invention, by using the UV curable silicone acrylate resin to formed the coating layer (206), for the same advantage suggested by Nishimura, with reasonable expectation of success.
LeBlanc further does not specify how the FRP layer (212) is prepared around the optical fibers (204). Yang also teaches an optical cable (Fig. 2) comprising an optical fiber (1), an outer polymer layer (3), and a fiber reinforcing layer (2) surround the optical fiber (1), wherein the fiber reinforcing layer is a glass, aramid or PE fiber in ethoxyline resin, acrylic or silicone rubber formed by thermal or ultraviolet curing (under “Step S2” in the English translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use one of the recognized, predictable solutions in the art, i.e., UV curing, for solidifying the FRP layer around the optical fibers in LeBlanc’s invention, as suggested by Yang, with reasonable expectation of success. The reason is UV curing is known for its advantages including fast curing time and lower manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 2, LeBlanc further teaches the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) is produced in a pultrusion production process (as illustrated in Fig. 3) and Yang further suggests the FRP is cured by UV radiation as stated in rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, LeBlanc further teaches the one or more layers of polymer is selected from a group consisting of PVC, Polyamide, Polyurethane, Polyethylene, or any other thermoplastic (PEEK).
Regarding claim 4, while LeBlanc modified by Nishimura does not specify the outer diameter of the optical fiber coated (206) with the colored silicone acrylic resin, Nishimura suggests that the resin coating improves the lateral pressure resisting properties and prevent increased transmission loss due to external force, and the thickness of the coating is therefore a result effective variable that must be capable of perform the intended functions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentation in order to determine and optimized or appropriate range of coating thickness for the optical fiber and thus the overall diameter of the coated optical fiber, so as to be thick enough to provide the pressure resistance properties, without unnecessarily increase the size, weight and cost of the cable . In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 5, the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) are usually made with vinyl Ester, polyester, and epoxy as is known in the art, and Official notice is taken that such modification would have not been novel or nonobvious to a PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 6, LeBlanc further teaches the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) can be made from reinforced fiber selected from a group consisting of glass fiber, carbon fiber, aramid fiber, basalt fiber.
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura further suggests that a thickness of the coated layer of polymers is in the range of at least 0.01 mm to 20 mm (0.02mm in col. 2 table), depending on the mechanical property that is needed for optical composite unit (OCU).
Regarding claim 8, LeBlanc further teaches the optical fiber unit is constructed by at least 1 to 8 optical composite unit (OCU) as illustrated in Fig. 2, depending on the capacity and the mechanical characteristics of the optical fiber unit that is needed (since LeBlanc teaches a functional optical cable).
Regarding claim 9, LeBlanc further teaches the shape of the FRP includes but is not limited to a circular shape, an oval shape or a regular polygon as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 10, LeBlanc teaches an optical fiber unit, comprising: an outer plastic coating (214); one or more optical composite units (OCU) each coated with a layer of polymer, comprising: an inner fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) (212); a plurality of optical fibers (204) coated by a silicone layer (206) resin and placed in the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) (212), wherein the plurality of optical fibers (204) are arranged concentrically inside the FRP, and wherein each of the plurality of the optical fibers are completely or partially embedded in the FRP (as illustrated in LeBlanc).
LeBlanc does not specify whether the coating layer (206) is a colored UV cured silicone or acrylic resin. Nishimura teaches coating optical fibers (1) with a peelable coating (2) formed of a UV curable silicone acrylate resins (see at least col. 4, para. 2). The peelable cured layer having a compression modulus of elasticity of at least 5 kg/mm2 but not exceeding 300 kg/mm2. This limitation on the compression modulus of the peelable cured coating layer is effective in improving the lateral pressure resisting properties, thereby preventing the occurrence of increased transmission loss due to external force, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify LeBlanc’s invention, by using the UV curable silicone acrylate resin to formed the coating layer (206), for the same advantage suggested by Nishimura, with reasonable expectation of success.
LeBlanc further does not specify how the FRP layer (212) is prepared around the optical fibers (204). Yang also teaches an optical cable (Fig. 2) comprising an optical fiber (1), an outer polymer layer (3), and a fiber reinforcing layer (2) surround the optical fiber (1), wherein the fiber reinforcing layer is a glass, aramid or PE fiber in ethoxyline resin, acrylic or silicone rubber formed by thermal or ultraviolet curing (under “Step S2” in the English translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use one of the recognized, predictable solutions in the art, i.e., UV curing, for solidifying the FRP layer around the optical fibers in LeBlanc’s invention, as suggested by Yang, with reasonable expectation of success. The reason is UV curing is known for its advantages including fast curing time and lower manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 11, LeBlanc further teaches the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) is produced in a pultrusion production process (as illustrated in Fig. 3) and Yang further suggests the FRP is cured by UV radiation as stated in rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, LeBlanc further teaches the one or more layers of polymer is selected from a group consisting of PVC, Polyamide, Polyurethane, Polyethylene, or any other thermoplastic (PEEK).
Regarding claim 13, while LeBlanc modified by Nishimura does not specify the outer diameter of the optical fiber coated (206) with the colored silicone acrylic resin, Nishimura suggests that the resin coating improves the lateral pressure resisting properties and prevent increased transmission loss due to external force, and the thickness of the coating is therefore a result effective variable that must be capable of perform the intended functions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentation in order to determine and optimized or appropriate range of coating thickness for the optical fiber and thus the overall diameter of the coated optical fiber, so as to be thick enough to provide the pressure resistance properties, without unnecessarily increase the size, weight and cost of the cable . In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 14, the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) are usually made with vinyl Ester, polyester, and epoxy as is known in the art, and Official notice is taken that such modification would have not been novel or nonobvious to a PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 15, LeBlanc further teaches the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) can be made from reinforced fiber selected from a group consisting of glass fiber, carbon fiber, aramid fiber, basalt fiber.
Regarding claim 16, Nishimura further suggests that a thickness of the coated layer of polymers is in the range of at least 0.01 mm to 20 mm (0.02mm in col. 2 table), depending on the mechanical property that is needed for optical composite unit (OCU).
Regarding claim 17, LeBlanc further teaches the optical fiber unit is constructed by at least 1 to 8 optical composite unit (OCU) as illustrated in Fig. 2, depending on the capacity and the mechanical characteristics of the optical fiber unit that is needed (since LeBlanc teaches a functional optical cable).
Regarding claim 18, LeBlanc further teaches the shape of the FRP includes but is not limited to a circular shape, an oval shape or a regular polygon as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP59213647A discloses a coated optical fibre in which a gel-like layer is formed between an uncoated optical fibre and a hardenable resin layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874