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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on July 13, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novack et al. (US 5,381,504 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed July 8, 2024).
Regarding claims 1-3, Novack discloses an optical fiber (10 in Fig. 1), comprising: a glass core (12A); a glass cladding (12B) surrounding and in direct contact with the glass core; and a coating (14, 18, 20) surrounding and in direct contact with the glass cladding, the coating including: a first high-modulus coating layer (14 is a protective coating with “a sufficiently high degree of hardness [such] that the coating is resistant to mechanical force and abrasion” which would naturally have a high modulus); a second high-modulus coating layer (20) having a Young’s modulus greater than 500 MPa (claim 3); and a low-modulus coating layer (18) having a Young’s modulus between about 0.20 MPa and 5 MPa (claim 3).
Still regarding claims 1-3, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the first high-modulus coating layer having a Young’s modulus greater than 500 MPa. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed modulus in order to provide sufficient protection to the optical fiber, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Still regarding claims 1-3, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for the outer circumference of the optical fiber has a diameter less than about 200 µm, or from about 160 µm to about 170 µm. However, Novack states that the diameter of the optical fiber will vary depending upon the application and that the scope of the invention is not limited to any particular diameter in column 7, line 53 to column 8, line 20. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed diameter in order to provide compatibility with a wide range of connectors or optical elements, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Still regarding claims 1-3, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the first high-modulus coating layer has a thickness of less than 8 µm, the low-modulus coating layer has a thickness of less than 15 µm, and the second high-modulus coating layer has a thickness of less than 25 µm. However, Novack discloses the first high-modulus coating layer has a thickness “from about 8” µm, the low-modulus coating layer has a thickness “from about 15” µm, and the second high-modulus coating layer has a thickness “from about 25” µm in column 8, lines 1-16. Novack also discloses that the scope of the invention is not limited to any particular set of thicknesses in column 8, lines 18-20. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed thicknesses in order to reduce the size of the optical fiber, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Finally, the courts have held that overlapping ranges were not required to find a claim prima facie obvious; In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of “less than 6 pounds per cubic feet” and the prior art range of “between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3” were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Regarding claim 4, Novack discloses at least one of the first high-modulus coating layer, the second high-modulus coating layer, and the low-modulus coating layer is a radially innermost coating layer that is directly adjacent the glass cladding, the radially innermost coating layer being the thinnest coating layer in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 5-13, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the attenuation at 1310 nm, attenuation at 1550 nm, or the cable cutoff. However, Novack discloses minimizing signal attenuation in column 2, lines 39-40. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed attenuation and cable cutoff in order to reduce losses, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 14-17, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the mode field diameter or effective area. However, Novack discloses the optical fiber being single mode or multi-mode in column 4, lines 3-8. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed mode field diameter or effective area in order to support the desired mode, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Novack discloses the first high-modulus coating layer is surrounding and in direct contact with the glass cladding, the low-modulus coating layer is surrounding and in direct contact with the first high-modulus coating layer, and the second high-modulus coating layer is surrounding and in direct contact with the low-modulus coating layer in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 19, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the final failure puncture load. However, Novack discloses the optical fiber being resistant to blades of a stripping tool, abrasion and mechanical damage in column 2, line 59 to column 3, line 7. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed final failure puncture load in order to protect the optical fiber, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Novack teaches the claimed invention except for the first high-modulus coating layer comprises a cured product that includes a monomer, a photoinitiator, a slip agent, and an adhesion promoter. However, Novack discloses the protective coating forming an adhesive bond with the optical fiber in column 3, lines 8-10. Further, polymers including a monomer, a photoinitiator, a slip agent are well-known and commonly used in the art of optical modules and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a coating layer comprising the claimed components to form a radiation-curable coating composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights