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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NL2036016 , filed on October 12, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on October 12, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Seven (7) sheets of drawings were filed on August 20, 2024.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Inventorship
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-17, and 19 recite the term “about” without providing a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. The specification does not provide some standard for measuring the scope of the term. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are because it is unclear what the point of reference from which “about” being measured. Consequently, the examiner is construing "about" as broadly as necessary to encompass the prior art. To address this, the examiner suggests amending the specification to explicitly define the term.
Claims 4, 13-14, 18 and 20 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim from which they depend.
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 1-2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Longunov et al (US20220283363A1), hereafter Longunov.
Regarding claim 1, Longunov discloses an optical fiber comprising: a core comprised of silica (Par. [0012]) and cladding surrounding the core (Par. [0026]), wherein the optical fiber has an attenuation at 1550 nm of about 0.1420 dB/km or less (0.155 dB/km is considered as about 0.1420 dB/km; Par. [0012]). Further, the patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hirano teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be necessarily present. The burden is on the applicant to show that the device of Hirano does not possess and is not capable of these functional characteristics or properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Longunov discloses the device of claim 1. Longunov further discloses the attenuation of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is about 0.1410 dB/km or less (0.155 dB/km is considered as about 0.1410 dB/km; Par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Longunov discloses the device of claim 1. Longunov further discloses the fiber is a single mode fiber (Abstract).
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano et al. (EP-2618189-A1), hereafter Hirano.
Regarding claim 1, Hirano discloses an optical fiber comprising: a core comprised of silica (Par. [0002]) and cladding surrounding the core (Abstract), wherein the optical fiber has an attenuation at 1550 nm of about 0.1420 dB/km or less ( 0.180 dB/km is considered as about 0.1420 dB/km Par. [0007]).
The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hirano teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be necessarily present. The burden is on the applicant to show that the device of Hirano does not possess and is not capable of these functional characteristics or properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano further disclose the attenuation of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is about 0.1410 dB/km or less (( 0.180 dB/km is considered as about 0.1420 dB/km Par. [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano further discloses a diameter of the core is in a range from about 12 microns to about 25 microns (5-15µm is within the claimed range; Par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano further discloses a fundamental mode field diameter of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is in a range from about 11 microns to about 16 microns (12.2-13.0 µm is within the claimed range; Par.[0031]).
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 3-7, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (EP-2618189-A1), hereafter Hirano.
Regarding claim 3, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano further discloses the optical fiber has the attenuation at 1550 nm of about 0.1420 dB/km or less ((( 0.180 dB/km is considered as about 0.1420 dB/km Par. [0007]).). Hirano fails to disclose the optical fiber has the attenuation at 1550 nm of about 0.1420 dB/km or less over at least 22 km of continuous optical fiber.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the device of Hirano with an attenuation of the claim dimension over a least 22km of continuous optical fiber since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano disclose a diameter of the core (Par. [0047]) and fundamental mode field diameter (Par. [0031]). Hirano does not directly disclose with sufficient specificity a diameter of the core larger than that of the fundamental mode field diameter.
However, Hirano does teach a diameter of the core between 5-15µm; Par. [0047], and a fundamental mode field diameter between 12.2-13.0 µm; Par. [0031], of the optical fiber at a wavelength of 1550nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states “in the case where the claimed ranges” overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exist.”
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the device of Hirano with the claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5-7, Hirano discloses the device of claim 4. Hirano fails to disclose wherein a ratio of the core diameter to the fundamental mode field diameter is about 1.05 to about 1.20.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hirano with a ratio of the core diameter to the fundamental mode field diameter within the claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano further discloses the cable cutoff wavelength of the optical fiber is from about 1500 nm (1530nm or less is considered about 1500nm Par. [0031]). Hirano does not directly disclose with sufficient specificity the cable cutoff wavelength of the optical fiber from about 1500nm to about 3000nm.
However, Hirano does teach a cutoff wavelength of the optical fiber of 1530nm or less (Par.[0031]). MPEP 2144.05 I states “in the case where the claimed ranges” overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exist.”
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the device of Hirano with the claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Hirano disclosed the device of claim 1. Hirano fails to disclose the small angle scattering loss of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is about 0.004 dB/km or less.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hirano with a small angle scattering loss of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is about 0.004 dB/km or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano fails to disclose the fiber is a single mode fiber.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art use a single mode fiber. Utilizing single-mode fibers is a standard industry practice to improve optical signal integrity. Standard industry design incentives (e.g., reducing signal loss or meeting specific transmission distance requirements) would have naturally motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a single-mode fiber from the finite, known set of optical fiber options.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (EP-2618189-A1), hereafter Hirano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bookbinder et al. (US20160168008A1), hereafter Bookbinder.
Regarding claim 11, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano fails to disclose the total Rayleigh scattering loss of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is about 0.135 dB/km or less.
Bookbinder teaches the total Rayleigh scattering loss of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is about 0.135 dB/km or less (FIG. 9; Par. [0138-0139]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the device of Hirano with a total Rayleigh scattering loss of the optical fiber at 1550 nm to 0.135 dB/km or less to achieve lower signal attenuation. Lowering signal attenuation is a universally recognized, predictable design goal in optical networking. Modifying Hirano with Bookbinder's optical loss limits uses a known technique to improve an already known fiber optic device, yielding predictable results without producing any unexpected or synergistic properties.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (EP-2618189-A1), hereafter Hirano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bickham et al. (US-7526169-B2), hereafter Bickham.
Regarding claim 14, Hirano discloses the device of claim 1. Hirano fails to disclose the fiber is a quasi-single mode fiber.
Bickham teaches the fiber is a quasi-single mode fiber (Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hirano with the quai-single mode fiber of Bickham. Quasi-single mode fibers inherently support higher-order modes, offering advantages such as an increased effective area, reduced optical nonlinearities, and improved bend resistance compared to strict single-mode fibers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that substituting this fiber into Hirano's device would yield these predictable improvements in optical transmission and reliability.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (EP-2618189-A1), hereafter Hirano.
Regarding claim 15, Hirano discloses an optical fiber comprising: a core comprised of silica doped with an alkali dopant (Par. [0002]); and cladding surrounding the core(Abstract) , a diameter of the core (Par. [0047]) and a fundamental mode field diameter (Par. [0031]) of the optical fiber at a wavelength of 1550 nm, and wherein the optical fiber has an attenuation at 1550 nm of about 0.1460 dB/km or less (0.180 dB/km is considered as about 0.1460 dB/km Par. [0007]). Hirano does not directly disclose with sufficient specificity a diameter of the core larger than that of the fundamental mode field diameter
However, Hirano does teach a diameter of the core between 5-15µm; Par. [0047], and a fundamental mode field diameter between 12.2-13.0 µm; Par. [0031], of the optical fiber at a wavelength of 1550nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states “in the case where the claimed ranges” overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exist.”
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the device of Hirano with the claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16-17, Hirano discloses the device of claim 15. Hirano further discloses the attenuation of the optical fiber at 1550 nm is about 0.1450 dB/km and 0.14520 dB/km or less (0.180 dB/km is considered as about 0.1450 and 0.14520 dB/km Par. [0007]).
Regarding claim 18, Hirano discloses the device of claim 15. Hirano further discloses the alkali dopant comprises potassium. (Par. [0007]).
Regarding claim 19, Hirano discloses the device of claim 18, Hirano further discloses the alkali dopant comprises potassium at a concentration greater than or equal to about 10 ppm (Par. [0041]).
Regarding claim 20, Hirano discloses the device of claim 19. Hirano further discloses the cladding comprise a fluorine dopant (Par. [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Homa (US947650B1) see entire disclosure
Sykora et al. (WO02097496A1) see entire disclosure
Suzuki et al. (Wo2018097256A1) see entire disclosure
Sanders et al. (US20080273849A1) see entire disclosure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights