The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, in the preamble, “A resin composition for primary coating of an optical fiber” which appears to have a typographical error/omission. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “A resin composition for a primary coating of an optical fiber”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2008/0226911 A1) in view of Ishikawa et al (JP 2017-7875).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Wu discloses (Abstract; para. 0003, 0015, 0075, and 0080) a resin composition for a primary coating of an optical fiber (Abstract), the resin composition comprising:
a photopolymerizable compound comprising a urethane (meth)acrylate (para. 0016 and 0075); and
a photopolymerizable initiator (para. 0018).
Wu does not teach that the composition can comprise a nonionic surfactant. However, Ishikawa discloses (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0012 – 0038, 0065, and 0067) a resin composition for a primary coating 14 of an optical fiber 13, the resin composition comprising:
a nonionic surfactant (“The coating layer 14 contains … a plurality of nonionic surfactant molecules” at para. 0013), wherein an HLB value of the nonionic surfactant calculated by Griffin's method is 8 or more and 12 or less (“The nonionic surfactant molecule preferably has an HLB value of 8 or more and … and still more preferably has an HLB value of 12 or less … Here, the HLB value is a value calculated by the Griffin's equation” at para. 0033; “polyoxyethylene-monooleate having an HLB value of 11.6 as a nonionic surfactant” at para. 0067), and
a content of the nonionic surfactant is 0.5 parts by mass or more and 5 parts by mass or less based on 100 parts by mass of a total amount of the resin composition (“The concentration of the nonionic surfactant in the treatment liquid is preferably in a range of 0.5% by mass to 5% by mass” at para 0049).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the resin composition of Wu can further comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Ishikawa, a nonionic surfactant so that the property of the outer surface of the coated fiber can be modified and, in particular, made slick/lubricated which can facilitate insertion of the optical fiber in tubes/ducts and/or the formation of fiber bundles (para. 0038 of Ishikawa).
Further, Ishikawa considers ranges of HLB values and concentration that at least overlap with the recited ranges and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (e.g., intended resistance to water, plasticity, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits (see a detailed explanation below); that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); that (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this regard, Ishikawa certainly views the HLB value and concentration of the nonionic surfactant as result-effective parameters.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Wu – Ishikawa combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
As an aside and relevant comment, it is further noted that, while the instant specification lists the ranges of HLB values (para. 0004, 0021, 0023, and 0037), the specification merely describes well-known facts that lower HLB values corespond to reduced water resistance (para. 0023) and higher HLB values to reduced oil resistance (ibid), whereas both water resistance and oli resistance are relative terms. For example, a Wikipedia article “Hydrophilic-lipophilic balance” is listed below as pertinent art and has a scale/table that shows that HLB values below 6 correspond to hydrophobic compositions, while HLB values about 12 to hydrophilic compositions.
Regarding claims 3 – 5, the Wu – Ishikawa combination considers that the nonionic surfactant comprises a nonionic surfactant having an polyoxyethylene group (“As the nonionic surfactant molecule, for example, polyoxyethylene monooleate and polyethylene polycyclic phenyl ether can be used” at para. 0032 of Ishikawa).
Further for claim 4, finding suitable/workable additives/derivatives would be well within ordinary skill in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, the Wu – Ishikawa combination renders obvious that the photopolymerizable compound can comprise an N-vinyl compound (e.g., “divinyl crosslinked macroreticular resins” at para. 0086 of Wu), and a content of the N-vinyl compound may be 0.01 – 3.0 wt %, the range overlapping with the recited range. Hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the Wu – Ishikawa combination considers that a Young's modulus of a resin film obtained by ultraviolet-curing the resin composition is 0.10 MPa or more and 0.60 MPa (para. 0046 of Wu) at room temperature (23oC; para. 0158). Determination of workable/optimum parameter for photopolymerization would be well within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the Wu – Ishikawa combination considers an optical fiber, comprising:
a glass fiber 13 comprising a core 11 and a cladding 12 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ishikawa);
a primary resin layer 14 coating the glass fiber 13 in contact with the glass fiber 13 (para. 0037 of Wu); and
a secondary resin layer coating the primary resin layer (para. 0037 of Wu), wherein the primary resin layer comprises a cured material of the resin composition (detailed above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, the Wu – Ishikawa combination considers a corresponding method for producing an optical fiber, comprising:
an application step of applying the resin composition (detailed above for claim 1)
to a periphery of a glass fiber 13 comprising a core 11 and a cladding 12 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ishikawa); and
a curing step of curing the resin composition by irradiation with ultraviolet rays after the application step (para. 0003 and 0144 of Wu).
Regarding claim 11, the Wu – Ishikawa combination considers an optical fiber ribbon, wherein a plurality of the coated optical fibers are arranged in parallel and coated with a resin (matrix material) for a ribbon (para. 0116 of Wu).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Ishikawa, and further in view of Sato et al (US 2020/0409005 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, while the Wu – Ishikawa combination does not mention a possible use of the contemplated fiber and fiber ribbon in an optical fiber cable, they are well known in the art. For example, Sato discloses (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0040 – 0063) an optical fiber cable 1A comprising a plurality of ribbons 10. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical and the fiber ribbon of the Wu – Ishikawa combination can be disposed in a cable, as illustrated by Sato and as a suitable/workable application that provides a plurality of optical fibers/ribbons disposed within a common sheath and mechanically protected by it.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Beaudoin et al (US 3,508,309 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Wu discloses (Abstract; para. 0003, 0015, 0075, and 0080) a resin composition for a primary coating of an optical fiber (Abstract), the resin composition comprising:
a photopolymerizable compound comprising a urethane (meth)acrylate (para. 0016 and 0075); and
a photopolymerizable initiator (para. 0018).
Wu does not teach that the composition can comprise a nonionic surfactant. However, Beaudoin discloses (Abstract; 7:51 – 55) a resin composition for a primary coating of a glass fiber, the resin composition comprising:
a nonionic surfactant (Abstract), wherein an HLB value of the nonionic surfactant is 4 or more and 16 or less (7:51 – 55), and
a content of the nonionic surfactant is 2 parts by mass on 100 parts by mass of a total amount of the resin composition (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the resin composition of Wu can further comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Beaudoin, a nonionic surfactant so that the property of the outer surface can be modified and, in particular, made lubricated which can reduced friction when the optical fiber is inserted in tubes/ducts.
Further, Beaudoin considers ranges of HLB values and concentration that at least overlap with the recited ranges and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (e.g., intended resistance to water, plasticity, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits (see a detailed explanation below); that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); that (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this regard, Beaudoin views the HLB value and concentration of the nonionic surfactant as result-effective parameters.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Wu – Beaudoin combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
As an aside and relevant comment, it is further noted that, while the instant specification lists the ranges of HLB values (para. 0004, 0021, 0023, and 0037), the specification merely describes well-known facts that lower HLB values corespond to reduced water resistance (para. 0023) and higher HLB values to reduced oil resistance (ibid), whereas both water resistance and oli resistance are relative terms. For example, a Wikipedia article “Hydrophilic-lipophilic balance” is listed below as pertinent art and has a scale/table that shows that HLB values below 6 correspond to hydrophobic compositions, while HLB values about 12 to hydrophilic compositions.
Regarding claims 3 – 5, the Wu – Beaudoin combination considers that the nonionic surfactant comprises a nonionic surfactant having an polyoxyethylene sorbian group (7:54 – 69 of Beaudoin).
Further for claim 4, finding suitable/workable additives/derivatives would be well within ordinary skill in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, the Wu – Beaudoin combination renders obvious that the photopolymerizable compound can comprise an N-vinyl compound (e.g., “divinyl crosslinked macroreticular resins” at para. 0086 of Wu), and a content of the N-vinyl compound may be 0.01 – 3.0 wt %, the range overlapping with the recited range. Hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the Wu – Beaudoin combination considers that a Young's modulus of a resin film obtained by ultraviolet-curing the resin composition is 0.10 MPa or more and 0.60 MPa (para. 0046 of Wu) at room temperature (23oC; para. 0158). Determination of workable/optimum parameter for photopolymerization would be well within ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Beaudoin, and further in view of Sato.
Regarding claim 9, the Wu – Beaudoin combination considers an optical fiber, comprising:
a primary resin layer coating the glass fiber in contact with the glass fiber (para. 0037 of Wu); and
a secondary resin layer coating the primary resin layer (para. 0037 of Wu), wherein the primary resin layer comprises a cured material of the resin composition (detailed above for claim 1).
While Wu does not detail that the glass fiber comprises a core and a cladding, Sato discloses (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0040 – 0063) an optical fiber cable 1A comprising a plurality of ribbons 10, each ribbon comprising optical fibers 11, wherein each fiber 11 comprises a core and a cladding (para. 0055). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical fiber of the Wu – Beaudoin combination can comprise a core and a cladding, as expressly taught by Sato and as needed for proper operation (light confinement and guiding) of the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 10, the Wu – Beaudoin – Sato combination considers a corresponding method for producing an optical fiber, comprising:
an application step of applying the resin composition (detailed above for claim 1) to a periphery of a glass fiber comprising a core and a cladding (detailed by Sato); and
a curing step of curing the resin composition by irradiation with ultraviolet rays after the application step (as taught by Wu).
Regarding claim 11, the Wu – Beaudoin – Sato combination considers a plurality of the optical fibers (detailed above for claim 1) arranged in parallel and coated with a resin for a ribbon (as detailed by Wu and Sato).
Regarding claim 12, the Wu – Beaudoin – Sato combination considers (Figs. 1 and 2 of Sato) that the optical fiber ribbon 10 is accommodated in a cable 1A.
Regarding claim 13, the Wu – Beaudoin – Sato combination considers (Figs. 1 and 2 of Sato) that a plurality of the optical fibers 11 are accommodated in a cable 1A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wikipedia article “Hydrophilic-lipophilic balance”.
US 6,301,415 B1 Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights