DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on June 24, 2026. Claims 1-5 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on June 25, 2025 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites—the surface treated titanium oxide particles have a surface-treated layer containing at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, and zirconium dioxide—which is similarly recited in the amended claim 1—the inorganic substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, and zirconium dioxide. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakubo (US 2021/0009854 A1, herein “Hamakubo”) in view of Iwaguchi et al. (US 2018/0156996 A1, herein “Iwaguchi”) and Hong et al. (US 2010/0142189 A1, herein “Hong”).
Regarding claims 1-2, Hamakubo discloses an optical fiber comprising:
a glass fiber (10) including a core (11) and a cladding (12) (Para [0056]);
a primary resin layer (14) being in contact with the glass fiber (13) and coating the glass fiber;
a secondary resin layer (15) coating the primary resin layer (14);
a resin composition for optical fiber coating, the resin composition comprising a photopolymerizable compound, a photopolymerization initiator (Para [0035]), and a surface-treated titanium oxide particles (Paras [0023]-[0024], and [0029]), the content of the surface-modified inorganic oxide particles is preferably 5% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less (Para [0031]. This content composition reads on the limitation “0.6% by mass or more and less than 25% by mass based on the total amount of the resin composition (Para [0031]).
Hamakubo does not expressly teach that there are three resin layers with the outermost being a colored resin layer, however it does teach that the outermost resin layer may contain surface-treated titanium oxide particles (Para [0029]) (a known pigment).
Iwaguchi teaches an optical fiber having a three resin layer, the primary resin layer (22) being in contact with the glass fiber (10), the secondary resin layer (24) coating the primary resin layer, a colored resin layer coating the secondary resin layer (Para [0032]), wherein the colored resin layer contains a cured product of the resin composition (Para [0062] and Claim 4), where the color resin layer comprises a resin composition with urethane methacrylate and epoxy methacrylate (Para [0037], [0047]). Furthermore, the coating has a colored layer contains a pigment for ease of identification of optical fibers which may be titanium oxide particles having a surface treatment (Para [0034]) (similar to the surface treated titanium oxide particles of Hamakubo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Hamakubo optical fiber having three resin layers, as taught by Iwaguchi where the outermost layer is a colored layer containing surface treated titanium oxide particles, because this is a well-known pigment. One would be motivated to color code the optical fiber for ease of maintenance functions such as patching, replacement etc.
Hamakubo in view of Iwaguchi do not explicitly teach the surface-treated titanium oxide particles are particles in which titanium oxide is surface-treated with an inorganic substance, and wherein the inorganic substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, and zirconium dioxide.
Hong teaches that titanium oxide particles surface treated with silica are known in the art for their optical properties (Para [0634]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known pigment particle, such as the titanium oxide particles surface treated with silica, as taught by Hamakubo, as the pigment particles in the combined Hamakubo and Iwaguchi optical fiber cable resin colored resin layer. One motivation would be to reduce photocatalytic degradation of the titanium oxide when exposed to UV light, thus the life time of the resin can be extended.
Claim 3. Hamakubo in view of Iwaguchi and Hong teach the invention of claim 2. However, Hamakubo in view of Iwaguchi do not explicitly teach the amount of the surface treated layer in the surface treated titanium oxide particles is 1% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the claim range is so close to claimed range that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP $2144.05 (I)). Hamakubo discloses the surface-treated titanium oxide particles content by mass has good dispersions of the particles in the resin and allows the tough resin layer to be easily formed (Para [0031]).
Claim 4. Hamakubo in view of Iwaguchi and Hong teach the invention of claim 1, Hamakubo further discloses an average primary particle diameter of the surface-treated titanium oxide particles is 400 nm or less, which anticipates the range of 300 nm or less (Para [0030])
Claim 5. Hamakubo in view of Iwaguchi and Hong teach the invention of claim 1, Hamakubo further discloses the photopolymerizable compound contains urethane methacrylate oligomer and epoxy methacrylate oligomer, and a monofunctional monomer (Paras [0035], [0041], [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892:U.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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 A. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights