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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “sharp peak” in Claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sharp peak” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s Specification defines “sharp peak” as, “a sudden dip or sudden rise in the relative refractive index profile.” However, the term “sudden” is itself a term of degree. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what profile of the core would anticipate the claim limitations.
For examination purposes, the term “sharp peak” shall be considered to refer to a profile having an inflection point adjacent two regions, with one region having a slope greater than 1 and another region having a slope less than negative 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the undoped region" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in Claim 14 or Claim 13, from which Claim 14 depends.
For examination purposes, any undoped region in a fiber shall be considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2018/0031761 A1 to Bookbinder et al. (“US1”).
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical fiber (see Figs 1A-2, [0057]-[0065], Example 9 of Table 2, Example 15 of Table 4) comprising:
one or more core regions (1) such that the one or more core regions is an up doped region (see Figs 1A-2); and
a cladding region (2/3) that surrounds the one or more core regions (see Figs 1A-2);
where the cladding region has exactly one down doped region (2) and an undoped region (3), where the down doped region is a continuous region adjacent to the one or more core region (see Figs 1A-2) such that a radial position of minimum relative refractive index of the optical fiber is within three micrometres (µm) from an interface between the down doped region and the undoped region (shown as directly adjacent in Figs 1A-2), where the optical fiber has a mode field diameter in a range of 8.8 µm to 9.6 µm at a wavelength 1310 nanometres (nm) (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a mode field diameter of 9.1, and Example 15 of Table 4, having a mode field diameter of 9.13), where the optical fiber has a cable cut-off of less than or equal to 1260 nm (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a cable cut-off of 1216nm, and Example 15 of Table 4 having a cable cut-off of 1197nm).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes the down doped region having a trench volume in a range of 3 to 4.5 µm2 (see Example 15 of Table 4 having a trench volume of 3.77 µm2).
Regarding Claim 3, US1 describes the down doped region a trench alpha in range of 1 to 3 (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a trench alpha of 1).
Regarding Claim 4, US1 describes the down doped region having a minimum relative refractive index in a range of -0.05 to -0.21 % (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a minimum relative refractive index of -0.5).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 describes the down doped region has a thickness in a range of 8 µm to 12 µm (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a thickness of 8.73 µm).
Regarding Claim 6, US1 describes the one or more core regions as not having a sharp peak at a center of the one or more core regions (see Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes an attenuation of the optical fiber at 1550 nm wavelength is less than or equal to 0.19 dB (see Example 9 of Table 2, having as attenuation of 0.17 dB). US1 is silent as to attenuations of the optical fiber at 1310 nm, 1383 nm, 1625 nm. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Here, US1 has a substantially identical structure as that of Claims 1 and 7 (set forth above). Therefore, the claims attenuation properties are presumed to be inherent to the fiber of US1.
Regarding Claim 8, US1 is silent as to a macro bend loss of the optical fiber using the claimed bend radii and wavelength. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Here, US1 has a substantially identical structure as that of Claims 1 and 8 (set forth above). Therefore, the claims macro bend loss properties are presumed to be inherent to the fiber of US1.
Regarding Claim 13, US1 describes an optical fiber (see Figs 1A-2, [0057]-[0065], Example 9 of Table 2, Example 15 of Table 4) comprising:
one or more core regions (1) such that the one or more core regions is an up doped region (see Figs 1A-2); and
a cladding region (2/3) that surrounds the one or more core regions;
where the cladding region has exactly one down doped region (2), where the down doped region is a continuous region adjacent to the one or more core region (shown as directly adjacent in Figs 1A-2), where the optical fiber has a mode field diameter in a range of 8.8 µm to 9.6 µm at a wavelength 1310 nanometres (nm) (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a mode field diameter of 9.1, and Example 15 of Table 4, having a mode field diameter of 9.13), where the optical fiber has a cable cut-off of less than or equal to 1260 nm (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a cable cut-off of 1216nm, and Example 15 of Table 4 having a cable cut-off of 1197nm).
Regarding Claim 14, US1 describes the optical fiber having a minimum relative refractive index positioned within three micrometres (µm) from an interface between the down doped region (2) and an undoped region (3; shown as directly adjacent in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 15, US1 describes the down doped region having a trench volume in a range of 3 to 4.5 µm2 (see Example 15 of Table 4 having a trench volume of 3.77 µm2).
Regarding Claim 16, US1 describes the cladding region has exactly one down doped region (2) and an undoped region (3).
Regarding Claim 17, US1 describes the down doped region a trench alpha in range of 1 to 3 (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a trench alpha of 1).
Regarding Claim 18, US1 describes the down doped region having a minimum relative refractive index in a range of -0.05 to -0.21 % (see Example 9 of Table 2, having a minimum relative refractive index of -0.5).
Regarding Claim 19, US1 describes an attenuation of the optical fiber at 1550 nm wavelength is less than or equal to 0.19 dB (see Example 9 of Table 2, having as attenuation of 0.17 dB). US1 is silent as to attenuations of the optical fiber at 1310 nm, 1383 nm, 1625 nm. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Here, US1 has a substantially identical structure as that of Claims 1 and 7 (set forth above). Therefore, the claims attenuation properties are presumed to be inherent to the fiber of US1.
Regarding Claim 20, US1 is silent as to a macro bend loss of the optical fiber using the claimed bend radii and wavelength. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Here, US1 has a substantially identical structure as that of Claims 13 and 20 (set forth above). Therefore, the claims macro bend loss properties are presumed to be inherent to the fiber of US1.
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, US1 is silent as to any outer coatings or jackets used with the optical fiber. Coating a jacketing layers are well-known in the art for use with optical fibers to provide mechanical and environmental protection to the core and cladding regions of a fiber. Such layers are well-known in the art to have a variety of mechanical properties, including Young’s modulus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide primary and secondary coating layers having the claimed properties on the optical fiber of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide protection to the core and cladding regions of the fiber.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, US1 does not describe the fiber used in an optical fiber ribbon. The use of optical fibers in ribbon structures where adjacent optical fibers are bonded intermittently is well-known in the art. Such fibers are known to allow for ease of handling optical fibers while allowing for the ribbon to be “rolled” into a compact shape. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fiber of US1 in an optical fiber ribbon where adjacent optical fibers are bonded intermittently. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for ease of handling the optical fibers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 describes the core region having
(i) a core volume in a range of 4.5 to 5.5 µm2,
(ii) a core relative refractive index in a range of 0.37 to 0.44 %, and
(iii) a core alpha value in a range of 3 to 6.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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 RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights