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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed June 2, 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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bickham et al. (US 2021/0223469 A1) in view of Kawaguchi et al. (CN 111032588 A), further in view of Matsushita (JP 2014-066558 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Bickham discloses an optical fiber (Fig. 2) comprising: a glass fiber (see abstract) including a core (10) and a cladding (50), the cladding (Fig. 5C) includes: an inner cladding (52) surrounding an outer periphery of the core; a trench (54) surrounding an outer periphery of the inner cladding; and an outer cladding (56) surrounding an outer periphery of the trench, the inner cladding has a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the core, the trench has a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the inner cladding, the outer cladding has a refractive index higher than the refractive index of the trench and lower than the refractive index of the core (Fig. 5C), the core being doped with germanium (paragraph 0080), the inner cladding doped with chlorine (paragraph 0134);
wherein when a relative refractive index difference of the core with respect to the refractive index of the outer cladding is designated as Δ1, a relative refractive index difference of the inner cladding with respect to the refractive index of the outer cladding is designated as Δ2, a relative refractive index difference of the trench with respect to the refractive index of the outer cladding is designated as Δ3, a radius of the outer periphery of the core is designated as r1, a radius of the outer periphery of the inner cladding is designated as r2, and a radius of the outer periphery of the trench is designated as r3, r2/r1 is 2.2 or more and 3.6 or less, r3 - r2 is 3 µm or more and 10 µm or less, Δ1 – Δ2 is 0.15% or more and 0.40% or less, |Δ2| is 0.10% or less, Δ3 is -0.70% or more and -0.10% or less (see paragraphs 0133-0135); and
a coating resin layer surrounding an outer periphery of the glass fiber, the coating resin layer having a primary resin layer (72) and a secondary resin layer (74; paragraph 0114), wherein in the coating resin layer, the primary resin layer in contact with and surrounds the outer periphery of the glass fiber, the secondary resin layer coating an outer periphery of the primary resin layer, wherein the primary resin layer has a thickness of 7.5 pm or more and 17.5 pm or less, the primary resin layer has a Young's modulus of 0.10 MPa or greater and 0.50 MPa or less, the secondary resin layer has a thickness of 5.0 pm or more and 17.5 pm or less, the secondary resin layer has an outer diameter of 165 pm or more and 175 pm or less, and the secondary resin layer has a Young's modulus of 1200 MPa or greater and 2800 MPa or less (see abstract, paragraph 0105); and
wherein the optical fiber has a mode field diameter of 8.8 pm or more and 9.6 pm or less for light having a wavelength of 1310 nm (Table 1), the optical fiber has a zero-dispersion wavelength of 1300 nm or more and 1324 nm or less (paragraph 0085), and the optical fiber has a cable cutoff wavelength of 1260 nm or less (Table 1).
Still regarding claims 1 and 2, Bickham teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the modulus at a temperature of 23oC. However, Bickham discloses modulus measurements performed at room temperature of 21oC in paragraph 0275. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed modulus at a temperature of 23oC for the purpose of forming robust and stable fibers at approximate room temperatures, 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 and 2, Bickham further discloses the optical fiber having a bending loss when the optical fiber is wrapped around a cylindrical mandrel in paragraph 0140 and the ranges of chlorine concentration based on a wt% in paragraph 0134. Bickham teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the claimed bending loss and chlorine concentration. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed bending loss in order to minimize losses which degrade the optical signal, and the claimed chlorine concentration in order to arrive at the desired relative refractive index, 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 and 2, Bickham teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the claimed variation of the outer diameter. Kawaguchi discloses an optical fiber wherein 3 times the standard deviation of the outer diameter in the axial direction of the optical fiber is 0.1 µm or more and 0.5 µm or less (see Table 1 and the accompanying description). Since both inventions relate to optical fibers, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form an outer diameter variation as disclosed by Kawaguchi in the optical fiber of Bickham for the purpose of reducing transmission loss.
Still regarding claims 1 and 2, the proposed combination of Bickham and Kawaguchi teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the claimed eccentric amount. Matsushita discloses measuring, at a plurality of measuring points set at predetermined intervals in an axial direction of the glass fiber, an eccentric amount of the glass fiber from a central axis based on the outer periphery of a resin layer (Fig. 1 shows measuring an eccentric amount of the fiber ‘F’ using photodetectors 21 at measuring points set at predetermined intervals in an axial direction of the fiber). Matsushita further discloses Fourier transforming a waveform representing the eccentric amount at a plurality of measurement points in paragraphs 0025-0027. Since all of the inventions relate to optical fibers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take measurement points at predetermined intervals along an axial direction as disclosed by Matsushita to arrive at the claimed the eccentric value in the optical fiber of the proposed combination of Bickham and Kawaguchi in order to minimize the eccentricity along the outer periphery and thus suppress damage 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.
Regarding claim 3, Bickham discloses a wavelength dispersion of the optical fiber for light at a wavelength of 1550 nm is 18.6 ps/(nm-km) or less, and wherein a zero-dispersion slope of the optical fiber is 0.092 ps/(nm2-km) or less in Table 1.
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination of Bickham, Kawaguchi and Matsushita teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the transmission loss. However, Bickham discloses the optical fiber having low transmission loss in paragraph 0004. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed transmission loss in order to minimize attenuation to improve signal quality, 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 8, Bickham discloses a coating resin layer surrounding an outer periphery of the glass fiber, the coating resin layer having a primary resin layer (72) and a secondary resin layer (74) and a first colored layer (76; paragraph 0114), coating an outer periphery of the secondary resin layer, wherein the secondary resin layer has a thickness of 5.0 pm or more and 17.5 pm or less (see abstract, paragraph 0105).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bickham et al. (US 2021/0223469 A1) in view of Kawaguchi et al. (CN 111032588 A), further in view of Matsushita (JP 2014-066558 A) and further in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 2015/0274577).
Regarding claim 6, Bickham further discloses an average chlorine mass concentration of the outer cladding is substantially zero (paragraph 0136 discloses the outer cladding undoped). The proposed combination of Bickham, Kawaguchi and Matsushita teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the average OH mass concentration. Nakanishi discloses an average OH mass concentration of an outer cladding is 5 ppm or more and 500 ppm or less in paragraph 0035. Since all of the inventions relate to optical fibers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the average OH mass concentration as disclosed by Nakanishi in the optical fiber of the proposed combination of Bickham, Kawaguchi and Matsushita for the purpose of reducing transmission loss.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bickham et al. (US 2021/0223469 A1) in view of Kawaguchi et al. (CN 111032588 A), further in view of Matsushita (JP 2014-066558 A) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (WO 2020/045372 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the proposed combination of Bickham, Kawaguchi and Matsushita teaches the claimed invention except for a second colored layer. Yamaguchi discloses an optical fiber (10 in Fig. 2) comprising an optical transmission body (13) that includes a core and a cladding, a primary resin layer (14), a second resin layer (15), and a coating layer (16), wherein the coating layer has a first colored layer (top or outer layer of 16), and a second colored layer (11) which is formed between the secondary resin layer and the first colored layer, the second colored layer has a color different from that of the first colored layer, and includes a plurality of patterns formed to be arranged mutually at an interval in an axial direction of the glass fiber. Since all of the inventions relate to optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a second colored layer as disclosed by Yamaguchi in the optical fiber of the proposed combination of Bickham, Kawaguchi and Matsushita for the purpose of providing identification marks which are protected by an outer layer and thus resistant to damage. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to form ring patterns disposed around the entire circumference of the optical fiber in order to allow for identification from any direction which would enhance identification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed June 2, 2026, have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant states that Matsushita is silent regarding performing a Fourier transform. However, Matsushita discloses performing Fourier transform on a waveform representing the eccentric amount at a plurality of measurement points in paragraphs 0025-0027. Specifically, paragraph 0025 states "a Fourier transformer 23 that performs a Fourier transform (FFT) on the light detection signal output from the light detector 21, and based on the output from the Fourier transformer 23, the deviation in the ultraviolet curable resin 2." As such, the combination of Bickham, Kawaguchi and Matsushita renders claim 1 obvious since one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to minimize the amplitude of the eccentricity in order to suppress damage to the optical fiber and since where the general conditions of a claim are described, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
On page 8, Applicant further states the limitation is substantially the same as the limitation in co-pending application 17/897314 which was allowed. However, that claim further included the limitation "wherein a wavelength at which the amplitude of the eccentric amount is largest is 0.1 m or more", which this claim lacks.
For the reasons stated above, the prima facie rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights