CTNF 18/834,288 CTNF 83286 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following issues: On page 7 of the specification the primary resin layer is described as having a diameter of between 0 and 210 μm and a thickness of between 0 and 65 μm. Both of these ranges are structural impossibilities. The primary resin layer is disposed over the glass fiber, therefore the minimum diameter of the primary resin layer is the diameter of the glass fiber. It cannot be 0 μm or near 0 μm. Also, the thickness of the primary resin must be a non-zero value. If the value of the thickness is zero (0 μm) then the layer does not exist. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-9 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. Claim 1 describes an optical fiber having a glass fiber (core/cladding) and two resin coating layers. The claim contains three formulas. The first calculates a value for D which is the lateral rigidity of the optical fiber and the second calculates H which is the flexural rigidity. The first formula has two terms. The first uses the radius of the glass fiber and the radius of the secondary resin layer along with three constants labeled c1, c2, and c3. The first term can be calculated as long as the radius of both the glass fiber and the radius of the secondary resin layer are known. The second term uses the radii and the Young’s Modulus value for each of the glass fiber, the primary resin layer and the secondary resin layer along with a series of 10 constants labeled generally c ikj . The c ikj constants are used to calculate the exponent to the 10 which is multiplied by the difference between E1 and E2. The exponent uses summation notation followed by three equations. Each of the three equations use the R0, R1, R2, E0, E1 and E2 variables, as well as i, j and k). The constants themselves are labeled with c followed by three digits, either 0, 1 or 2. The first equation is unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art because it is unclear how to calculate the exponent of 10 using the c ikj constants. The summation notation would indicate that the series of values should be summed to obtain the exponent to 10. What are these values and how are they obtained? How many values are summed? Looking at the c ikj constants, for example, how is constant c 000 = -0.611554 supposed to be applied to the equations in the exponent? What is the i, k and j values of c 000 = -0.611554? Because the exponent of 10 cannot be calculated with the information given in the claimed formula, one skilled in the art would not be able to understand the metes and bounds of the claim, because this calculation could not be performed. The examiner looked to the specification for clarification and recognized that equation 1 in the claim was derived from formulas 5 and 6 given on page 12 of the specification. However there is no explanation given in the specification as to how to perform this calculation with the given c ikj constants. In general it is recognized that the overall invention is intended to minimize bending loss by providing a two layered resin coating, where the primary resin layer has a very low Young’s Modulus and the secondary resin layer has a very high Young’s Modulus. It would also be clear to one skilled in the art that the third claimed formula is a variation of equation 4 of page 11 of the specification which relates the lateral rigidity, the flexural rigidity and a constant A with the microbend loss α. Constant A is based on the propagation characteristics of an actual optical fiber under real test conditions. Parameters of this fiber and test would include the actual dimensions of each of the core, cladding and each of the resin layers, as well as the refractive index profile and the test signal light used. To better understand what is actually being claimed, the skilled artisan would have to understand basic parameters or ranges for any and all of these variables. It is understood that these parameters may be baked into the other variables provided in the equations, but applicant is reminded the claims are directed toward an actual physical optical fiber with dimensions, materials, a refractive index profile and actual optical performance. To satisfy 35 USC 112(b) the skilled artisan must be able to determine the metes and bounds of the actual claimed physical fiber. Simply describing the fiber with a series of equations, with no explanation as to what the given variables mean, or how they are derived, may not satisfy the statute without better explanation as to the actual physical parameters of the optical fiber. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo, WO 2018025896 A1 . With regard to claim 1, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses an optical fiber (16) comprising: a glass fiber including a core (21) and a cladding (22) surrounding the core; a primary resin layer (23) surrounding the glass fiber; and a secondary resin layer (24) surrounding the primary resin layer, wherein in a case where a radius of the glass fiber is denoted by RO [m], a Young's modulus of the glass fiber is denoted by EO [N/m 2 ], a radius of the primary resin layer is denoted by R1[m], a Young's modulus of the primary resin layer is denoted by El [N/m 2 ], a radius of the secondary resin layer is denoted by R2 [m], and a Young's modulus of the secondary resin layer is denoted by E2 [N/m 2 ]. Sumitomo teaches that bending loss is reduced with the use of a primary coating with a low Young’s modulus and a secondary resin coating with a much higher Young’s modulus which optimizes the values for the lateral rigidity and flexural rigidity and therefore minimizes bending loss. Sumitomo does not expressly teach the three formulas of claim 1, but it does teach similar formulas which indicates that the methods of performing the calculations of claim 1 where known. Further one skilled in the around would recognize that the differences between Sumitomo optical fiber and the claimed optical fiber is that the claimed optical fiber has a slightly smaller diameter, the primary resin layer has a slightly lower Young’s modulus and the secondary resin layer has a high Young’s modulus. All other physical, structural and optical characteristics are nearly the same, such as materials for both the glass fiber and resin coatings, the refractive index profiles, the microbending loss test parameters as well as the methods for calculating the relationship between the physical characteristics of the resin layers and the microbending optical loss. The instant claimed invention would therefore be seen by one skilled in the art as a routine optimization of the optical fiber generally disclosed by Sumitomo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Sumitomo optical fiber by decreasing the Young’s modulus of the primary resin layer and increasing the Young’s modulus of the secondary resin layer, thereby further reducing microbending loss for a smaller diameter fiber by following the guidance and teachings of Sumitomo. Such a fiber would satisfy all claimed formulas. With regard to claim 2, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses a diameter of the glass fiber is from 75 μm to 130 μm (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). With regard to claim 3, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses a diameter of the glass fiber is from 75 μm to 120 μm (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). With regard to claim 4, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses the Young's modulus of the primary resin layer is from 0.01 MPa to 0.8 MPa (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). With regard to claim 5, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses the Young's modulus of the primary resin layer is from 0.05 MPa to 0.7 MPa (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). With regard to claim 6, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses a thickness of the secondary resin layer is 5 μm or more (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). With regard to claim 7, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses the Young's modulus of the secondary resin layer is from 1,000 MPa to 3,000 MPa (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). With regard to claim 8, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses the coating concentricity error is 6 μm or less (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). With regard to claim 9, in fig. 2 Sumitomo discloses a microbend loss is 5.0 dB/km or less (the claimed values are either disclosed by Sumitomo or they are an obvious variation obtained by routine optimization as described in the rejection of claim 1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4. 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, Matthew W Such can be reached at (571)272-1570. 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. /THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/834,288 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/834,288 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/834,288 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/834,288 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/834,288 Page 6 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/834,288 Page 7 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/834,288 Page 8 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights