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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Three sheets for formal drawings were filed June 27, 2024 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al. (US 2017/0307814 A1) in view of Howe et al. (CA 3206215 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Tachibana discloses a resin composition for colored coating (36 in Fig. 2) on an optical fiber (2), comprising: a photopolymerizable compound (paragraph 0028); and a photopolymerization initiator, wherein the photopolymerization initiator contains an acyl phosphine oxide compound (paragraph 0037).
Still regarding claims 1-3, Tachibana teaches the claimed invention except for the photopolymerization initiator is in a liquid state at 25ºC. Howe discloses a coating (paragraph 0002) comprising a photopolymerization initiator including ethyl phenyl (2,4,6-trimethyl benzoyl) phosphinate (paragraph 0051). Since both of the inventions relate to resin coatings, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use the compound as disclosed by Howe in the device of Tachibana for the purpose of enhancing the peeling properties. In the proposed combination, since the compound is the same as that claimed, it would necessarily have the same properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As such, the photopolymerization initiator would also be in a liquid state at 25ºC.
Regarding claim 4, Tachibana discloses a content of the acyl phosphine oxide compound is 0.01% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the photopolymerizable compound in paragraph 0040.
Regarding claim 5, Tachibana discloses a titanium oxide particle in paragraph 0041.
Regarding claim 6, Tachibana discloses a glass fiber (2 in Fig. 2) including a core (12) and a clad (14); a primary resin layer (32) covering the glass fiber in contact with the glass fiber; a secondary resin layer (34) covering the primary resin layer; and a colored resin layer (36) covering the secondary resin layer, wherein the colored resin layer contains a cured product of the resin composition.
Regarding claim 7, Tachibana discloses a glass fiber (1 in Fig. 1) including a core (12) and a clad (14); a primary resin layer (22) covering the glass fiber in contact with the glass fiber; a secondary resin layer (24) covering the primary resin layer; wherein the secondary resin layer contains a cured product of the resin composition in paragraph 0026.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Tachibana discloses a plurality of the optical fibers (1 in Fig. 3) are arranged in parallel, and coated with a ribbon resin (40).
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 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights