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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 5-8) in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. New claims 9-14 have been added. Accordingly, claims 5-14 will be examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Attorney Sukenaga, on 12 August 2026, authorized an examiner amendment to cancel the non-elected/withdrawn claims 1-4 and incorporate all limitations of claim 1 into each of claims 5 and 6, respectively, to place the instant application in a condition for allowance. However, upon further consideration, the indicated allowability of claims 5 and 6 is withdrawn in view of Sato et al. (JP 4292065 B2), Abel et al. (WO 0198817 A2), and Ohnishi et al. (WO 2014069266 A1). Rejections based on the reference(s) follow.
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.
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(s) 5, 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 4292065 B2).
Re claim 5, Sato et al. discloses an optical fiber (fig. 1) comprising: a glass fiber (3) including a core and a cladding (English Translation, top p. 7); a primary resin layer (4) being in contact with the glass fiber and coating the glass fiber (p. 5, 5th paragraph); a secondary resin layer (5) coating the primary resin layer (mid page 8); and a colored resin layer (6) coating the secondary resin layer (fig. 1), wherein the colored resin layer contains a cured product of a resin composition for colored coating on an optical fiber (mid page 8), the resin composition comprising a photopolymerizable compound (polymerizable oligomer; p. 13-14), a polydimethylsiloxane compound (bottom p. 13), a photopolymerization initiator (bottom p. 13), and titanium oxide (bottom p. 10 and p. 10), wherein the photopolymerizable compound contains an epoxy di(meth)acrylate (p. 13, 2nd-3rd paragraphs), a content of the epoxy di(meth)acrylate is 30 parts by mass or more and 75 parts by mass or less (p. 13-14) with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of the photopolymerizable compound and the polydimethylsiloxane compound, the polydimethylsiloxane compound includes a dimethylsiloxane unit and an alkylene oxide unit (p. 9, 3rd-4th paragraphs).
Sato et al. fails to teach a molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit based on the total amount of the dimethylsiloxane unit and the alkylene oxide unit is 12% by mol or more and 80% by mol or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit as claimed since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, to enhance surface activity, compatibility, and functionality, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Re claim 7, Sato et al. discloses an optical fiber ribbon in which a plurality of optical fibers according to claim 5 are arranged in parallel and coated with a ribbon resin (7; fig. 3).
Re claim 9, Sato et al. discloses the optical fiber according to claim 5, wherein the polydimethylsiloxane compound includes a (meth)acryloyl group (p. 7, 4th to last paragraph).
Re claim 11, Sato et al. discloses the optical fiber according to claim 5, wherein the photopolymerizable compound further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of alkylene oxide-modified di(meth)acrylate and alkylene oxide-modified tri(meth)acrylate (polyalkylene glycol di(meth)acrylates, bottom 4th of p. 9).
Claim(s) 5-8, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel et al. (WO 0198817 A2) in view of Ohnishi et al. (WO 2014069266 A1).
Re claim 5, Abel et al. discloses an optical fiber comprising: a glass fiber (11) including a core and a cladding (inherent); a primary resin layer (inner primary coating being in contact with the glass fiber and coating the glass fiber (p. 1, lines 12-13); a secondary resin layer (outer primary coating; p. 1, lines 13-15) coating the primary resin layer; and a colored resin layer (p. 6, lines 1-5 and p. 16, line 1) coating the secondary resin layer, wherein the colored resin layer contains a cured product of a resin composition for colored coating on an optical fiber (p. 6, lines 13-33), the resin composition comprising a photopolymerizable compound (epoxy diacrylate; p. 6, lines 35-36), a polydimethylsiloxane compound (p. 7, line 6), a photopolymerization initiator (p. 7, line 3), and titanium oxide (dry pigment; p. 7, line 8 and p. 13, lines 22-23), wherein the photopolymerizable compound contains an epoxy di(meth)acrylate (p. 11, lines 13-15 and p. 15, lines 9-10), a content of the epoxy di(meth)acrylate is 30 parts by mass or more and 75 parts by mass or less (40-60%; p. 6, line 35 and p. 7, line 26) with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of the photopolymerizable compound and the polydimethylsiloxane compound.
Abel et al. fails to teach the polydimethylsiloxane compound includes a dimethylsiloxane unit and an alkylene oxide unit, and a molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit based on the total amount of the dimethylsiloxane unit and the alkylene oxide unit is 12% by mol or more and 80% by mol or less.
Ohnishi et al. discloses a curable resin composition for coating optical fiber (English translation, “Technical-Field” on p. 1) comprising an alkylene oxide-modified polydialkylsiloxane includes a dimethylsiloxane unit and an alkylene oxide unit, and a molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit based on the total amount of the dimethylsiloxane unit and the alkylene oxide unit is 12% by mol or more (1-20 moles of alkylene oxide, mid page 4 and bottom page 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a dimethylsiloxane unit and an alkylene oxide unit in the polydimethylsiloxane compound with a molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit based on the total amount of the dimethylsiloxane unit and the alkylene oxide unit is 12% by mol or more as taught by Ohnishi et al. since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, to enhance surface activity, compatibility, and functionality, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Re claim 6, Abel et al. discloses an optical fiber comprising: a glass fiber (p. 1, line 10) including a core and a cladding (inherent); a primary resin layer (internal coating, p. 6, lines 30-32) being in contact with the glass fiber and coating the glass fiber (p. 1, lines 12-13); a secondary resin layer (colored coating) coating the primary resin layer (p. 6, lines 6-7), wherein the secondary resin layer contains a cured product of a resin composition for colored coating on an optical fiber (p. 6, lines 13-33), the resin composition comprising a photopolymerizable compound (epoxy diacrylate; p. 6, lines 35-36), a polydimethylsiloxane compound (p. 7, line 6), a photopolymerization initiator (p. 7, line 3), and titanium oxide (dry pigment; p. 7, line 8 and p. 13, lines 22-23), wherein the photopolymerizable compound contains an epoxy di(meth)acrylate (p. 11, lines 13-15 and p. 15, lines 9-10), a content of the epoxy di(meth)acrylate is 30 parts by mass or more and 75 parts by mass or less (40-60%; p. 6, line 35 and p. 7, line 26) with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of the photopolymerizable compound and the polydimethylsiloxane compound.
Abel et al. fails to teach the polydimethylsiloxane compound includes a dimethylsiloxane unit and an alkylene oxide unit, and a molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit based on the total amount of the dimethylsiloxane unit and the alkylene oxide unit is 12% by mol or more and 80% by mol or less.
Ohnishi et al. discloses a curable resin composition for coating optical fiber (English translation, “Technical-Field” on p. 1) comprising an alkylene oxide-modified polydialkylsiloxane includes a dimethylsiloxane unit and an alkylene oxide unit, and a molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit based on the total amount of the dimethylsiloxane unit and the alkylene oxide unit is 12% by mol or more (1-20 moles of alkylene oxide, mid page 4 and bottom page 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a dimethylsiloxane unit and an alkylene oxide unit in the polydimethylsiloxane compound with a molar ratio of the dimethylsiloxane unit based on the total amount of the dimethylsiloxane unit and the alkylene oxide unit is 12% by mol or more as taught by Ohnishi et al. since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, to enhance surface activity, compatibility, and functionality, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Re claim 7, Abel et al./Ohnishi et al. discloses an optical fiber ribbon in which a plurality of optical fibers according to claim 5 are arranged in parallel and coated with a ribbon resin (p. 16, lines 31-35).
Re claim 8, Abel et al./Ohnishi et al. discloses an optical fiber ribbon in which a plurality of optical fibers according to claim 6 are arranged in parallel and coated with a ribbon resin (p. 16, lines 31-35).
Re claims 10 and 13, Abel et al./Ohnishi et al. discloses the optical fiber according to claim 5 or 6 as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach a viscosity of the resin composition is 800 mPa-s or more and less than 10000 mPa-s at 25°C. However, since the resin composition recited in Abel et al./Ohnishi et al. is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, thus the resin composition of Abel et al./Ohnishi et al. would have the same viscosity values as claimed.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abel et al. (WO 0198817 A2) in view of Ohnishi et al. (WO 2014069266 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (JP 4292065 B2).
Re claims 12 and 14, Abel et al./Ohnishi et al. disclose the optical fiber according to claim 6 as discussed above but fails to teach the polydimethylsiloxane compound includes a (meth)acryloyl group or the photopolymerizable compound further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of alkylene oxide-modified di(meth)acrylate and alkylene oxide-modified tri(meth)acrylate.
Sato et al. discloses the optical fiber having a resin layer including the polydimethylsiloxane compound includes a (meth)acryloyl group (p. 7, 4th to last paragraph), and the photopolymerizable compound further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of alkylene oxide-modified di(meth)acrylate and alkylene oxide-modified tri(meth)acrylate (polyalkylene glycol di(meth)acrylates, bottom 4th of p. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polydimethylsiloxane compound and photopolymerizable compound of Abel et al./Ohnishi et al. selecting from a (meth)acryloyl group and poly(meth)acrylates, respectively, as taught by Ohnishi et al. since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, to enhance flexibility, compatibility, and functionality, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Conclusion
Greer et al. (US 20050084224 A1), Greer et al. (US 7414081 B2), Sato et al. (US 11415769 B2), Tanaka et al. (US 8639077 B2), Hamakubo et al. (US 20240392155 A1), and Iwaguchi et al. (US 10241262 B2) disclose an optical fiber comprising: a glass fiber including a core and a cladding; a primary resin layer being in contact with the glass fiber and coating the glass fiber; a secondary resin layer coating the primary resin layer; and a colored resin layer coating the secondary resin layer, wherein the colored resin layer or the second resin layer contains a cured product of a resin composition for colored coating on an optical fiber.
Oshio et al. (US 6853788 B2) discloses a resin composition for a coating for an optical fiber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Uyen-Chau N. Le whose telephone number is (571)272-2397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Kiesha R. Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights