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.
Claim 1-5 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0124143 (“JACOBSEN”) in view of US 6,201,917 (“CAMPION”).
Regarding claim 1, JACOBSEN teaches an optical fiber (100) comprising: an optical core region (110), defined as having a center C (115) and a radius Rcore (ra); an inner cladding layer (120, inner; FIG. 5), comprising silica material (par. [0042]), surrounding the optical core region; a barrier ring (140) surrounding the inner cladding layer, the barrier ring having an inner radius disposed at a distance R1 from the center of the optical core region and an outer radius at a distance R2 (>R1) from the center of the optical core region (FIG. 5); and an outer cladding layer (either 120, outer and/or 130; FIG. 5) surrounding the barrier ring.
JACOBSEN does not teach that the barrier ring comprises a silicate glass including an oxide material with a density greater than silica. CAMPION teaches an optical fiber comprising a barrier ring between inner and outer cladding layers, wherein the barrier ring comprises a silicate glass including an oxide material with a density greater than silica (FIG. 1; col. 3, lines 16-22; col. 4, lines 1-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the barrier ring of JACOBSEN so as to comprise a silicate glass including an oxide material with a density greater than silica, as taught by CAMPION. The motivation would have been to reduce hydrogen induced losses (col. 4, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 2, CAMPION teaches that the barrier ring comprises a silicate glass including a concentration of an oxide material sufficient to reduce hydrogen diffusivity into the center C of the optical core region (FIG. 1; col. 3, lines 16-22; col. 4, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 3, JACOBSEN teaches that R1 exhibits a value between about 10 mm and 60 mm (pars. [0053]-[00056]).
Regarding claim 4, JACOBSEN teaches that the barrier ring comprises materials that are transparent to UV radiation (par. [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, CAMPION teaches that the oxide material included in the barrier ring comprises at least aluminum oxide (col. 3, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 11, CAMPION teaches the barrier ring comprises a plurality of layers (120, outer; and 140) separated by cladding material (120 inner; and 130), each layer including a defined concentration of the oxide material (col. 3, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 12, CAMPION teaches that the barrier ring exhibits a uniform concentration of the oxide material from R1 to R2 (col. 3, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 13, CAMPION teaches that the barrier ring exhibits a radially varying concentration of the oxide material from R1 to R2 (col. 3, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 14, JACOBSEN teaches that the barrier ring is transparent to wavelengths used to create grating structures in the optical core region (par. [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, JACOBSEN teaches an optical fiber (100) comprising an optical core region (110), defined has having a center C (115) and a radius Rcore (ra); an inner cladding layer (120, inner; FIG. 5) comprising silica material (par. [0042]) and disposed to surround the optical core region; a hydrogen diffusion barrier ring (140) disposed to surround the inner cladding layer; and an outer cladding layer (either 120, outer and/or 130; FIG. 5) surrounding the hydrogen diffusion barrier ring.
JACOBSEN does not teach that the hydrogen diffusion barrier ring comprising a silicate glass including a concentration of aluminum oxide selected to reduce diffusion of hydrogen toward the center C of the optical core region. CAMPION teaches an optical fiber comprising a hydrogen diffusion barrier ring between inner and outer cladding layers, wherein the hydrogen diffusing barrier ring comprising a silicate glass including a concentration of aluminum oxide selected to reduce diffusion of hydrogen toward the center C of the optical core region (FIG. 1; col. 3, lines 16-22; col. 4, lines 1-12).16. The optical fiber as defined in claim 15 wherein the hydrogen diffusion barrier ring comprises materials that are transparent to UV radiation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the hydrogen diffusing barrier ring of JACOBSEN so as to comprise a silicate glass including a concentration of aluminum oxide selected to reduce diffusion of hydrogen toward the center C of the optical core region, as taught by CAMPION. The motivation would have been to reduce hydrogen induced losses (col. 4, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 16, JACOBSEN teaches that the hydrogen diffusion barrier ring comprises materials that are transparent to UV radiation (par. [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, CAMPION teaches that the concentration of aluminum oxide is a non-zero amount up to about 20 mol% (col. 2, lines 30-45).
Claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACOBSEN in view of CAMPION as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of US 2008/0056659 (“BOUROVA”).
Regarding claim 6, JACOBSEN in view of CAMPION renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 5. JACOBSEN does not teach a composition of the barrier ring further includes a nonzero concentration of an alkali metal oxide. BOUROVA teaches an optical fiber wherein a composition of a barrier ring includes a nonzero concentration of an alkali metal oxide (par. [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the barrier ring of JACOBSEN such that it has a composition including a nonzero concentration of an alkali metal oxide, as taught by BOUROVA. The motivation would have been to achieve light amplification within the optical fiber (par. [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, BOUROVA teaches an optical fiber wherein a composition of silicate glass includes a nonzero concentration of an alkaline earth metal oxide par. ([0041]).
Regarding claim 18, BOUROVA teaches an optical fiber wherein a hydrogen diffusion barrier ring comprises an alkali metal oxide selected from the group consisting of: Li2O, Na2O, and K2O (par. [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, BOUROVA teaches an optical fiber wherein a hydrogen diffusion barrier ring comprises an alkaline earth metal oxide selected from the group consisting of: MgO, CaO, and BaO (par. [0041]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACOBSEN in view of CAMPION as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
US 2011/0058780 (“HAN”).
Regarding claim 8, JACOBSEN in view of CAMPION renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 1. JACOBSEN does not teach that the barrier ring includes a concentration of the oxide material that is sufficient to provide a difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between the barrier ring and the outer cladding layer, so as to maintain the outer cladding layer in a compressive state after fiber draw. HAN teaches an optical wherein a barrier ring includes a concentration of oxide material that is sufficient to provide a difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between the barrier ring and an outer cladding layer, so as to maintain the outer cladding layer in a compressive state after fiber draw (par. [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the barrier ring of JACOBSEN such that it includes a concentration of oxide material that is sufficient to provide a difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) between the barrier ring and the outer cladding layer, so as to maintain the outer cladding layer in a compressive state after fiber draw, as taught by HAN. The motivation would have been to maintain the outer cladding layer in a compressive state after fiber draw (par. [0046]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, JACOBSEN in view of CAMPION and further in view of HAN renders obvious the limitations of the base claim 8. 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 JACOBSEN as set forth in the instant claims.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACOBSEN in view of CAMPION as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2003/0099455 (“ZHANG”).
JACOBSEN teaches that the optical fiber is a multimode fiber (par. [0049]). JACOBSEN does not teach that the optical core region comprises a graded-index germanium-doped silica material. ZHANG teaches an optical fiber wherein an optical core region comprises a graded-index germanium-doped silica material (par. [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the optical core region of JACOBSEN so as to comprise a graded-index germanium-doped silica material, as taught by ZHANG. The motivation would have been to reduce hydrogen induced losses (par. [0020]).
Conclusion
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