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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 9th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US20120196122 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US20190382616 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bishop et al. teaches a resin composition for secondary coating of an optical fiber (Claim 1) comprising:
a photopolymerizable compound containing urethane (meth)acrylate (paragraphs 0024-0025; Claim 3) derived from a plant component (paragraphs 0101-0102, 0112)
a photopolymerization initiator (Claim 3)
Bishop et al. teaches that the urethane (meth)acrylate should be made from plant-derived polyols but does not expressly detail a specific plant-derived urethane (meth)acrylate. Seo et al. expressly teaches a photopolymerizable compound containing urethane (meth)acrylate derived from a plant component (paragraphs 0019-0026, 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to form Bishop et al.’s plant-derived urethane (meth)acrylate secondary coating using Seo et al.’s specific plant-derived urethane (meth)acrylate, as the combination is a known bio-based coating for its intended purpose to reduce the use of petroleum-derived components as mentioned in Bishop et al. (paragraph 0112).
Regarding Claim 2, Seo et al. further teaches that a biomass degree of the urethane (meth)acrylate is 20% or more and 70% or less (paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 3, Seo et al. further teaches that a content of the urethane (meth)acrylate is 10 parts by mass or more and 80 parts by mass or less on the basis of a total amount of 100 parts by mass of the resin composition (paragraphs 0037-0038).
Regarding Claim 4, Seo et al. further teaches that the photopolymerizable compound further contains a monomer derived from a plant component (paragraph 0048; Claim 22).
Regarding Claim 5, Seo et al. further teaches that the monomer derived from a plant component is at least one type selected from the group consisting of n-octyl (meth)acrylate, lauryl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl (meth)acrylate, glycerine di(meth)acrylate, decanediol di(meth)acrylate, glycerine propylene oxide-modified tri(meth)acrylate, and glycerine tri(meth)acrylate (paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 6, Bishop et al. teaches that a biomass degree of the resin composition is 10% or more and 50% or less (paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 9, Bishop et al. teaches an optical fiber comprising:
a glass fiber including a core and a clad (paragraphs 0085-0086)
a primary resin layer covering the glass fiber in contact with the glass fiber (paragraphs 0088-0089)
a secondary resin layer covering the primary resin layer, wherein the secondary resin layer contains a cured product of the resin composition mentioned in Claim 1 (paragraphs 0088-0089)
Regarding Claim 10, Bishop et al. teaches a method for producing an optical fiber comprising:
an applying step of applying the resin composition mentioned in Claim 1 to an outer circumference of a glass fiber including a core and a clad (paragraphs 0088-0089, 0140-0141)
a curing step of curing the resin composition by ultraviolet irradiation after the applying step (paragraph 0155)
Regarding Claim 11, Bishop et al. further teaches an optical fiber ribbon in which a plurality of the optical fibers mentioned in Claim 9 are arranged in parallel and coated with a ribbon resin (paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 12, Bishop et al. further teaches an optical fiber cable in which the optical fiber ribbon mentioned in Claim 11 is stored in a cable (paragraph 0088).
Regarding Claim 13, Bishop et al. further teaches an optical fiber cable in which a plurality of the optical fibers mentioned in Claim 9 are stored in a cable (paragraph 0088).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US20120196122 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US20190382616 A1) and Terruzzi et al. (US20190233330 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bishop et al. and Seo et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Neither reference expressly teaches the cured film’s glass transition temperature. Terruzzi et al. expressly teaches that a glass transition temperature of a resin film when curing the resin is greater than 50℃ (paragraphs 0003, 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to formulate the secondary resin composition of Bishop and Seo et al. so that a glass transition temperature of a resin film when curing the resin composition with an ultraviolet ray in a condition of an integrated light intensity of 100 mJ/cm2 and an illumination of 100 mW/cm2 is 60℃ or higher and 100℃ or lower because this is an art-recognized glass-transition-temperature window for secondary coating that provides the toughness and protective function expected.
Regarding Claim 8, Terruzzi et al. further teaches that a Young's modulus of the resin film is 500 MPa or more and 2000 MPa or less at 234C (paragraphs 0003-0004, 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to formulate the secondary resin composition so that a Young's modulus of the resin film is 600 MPa or more and 2000 MPa or less at 234C as this is an art-recognized modulus window conferring the mechanical resistance the secondary coating is designed to provide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 5712701739. 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.
/NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights