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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this instant the limitations of: “wherein a transmittance t1 of light having a wavelength of 650 nm at a film thickness of the first cladding and a transmittance t2 of light having a wavelength of 650 nm at a film thickness of the second cladding have a relationship of t1 > t2” within claim 12 has already been recited in claim 1. Applicants may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 2, 5, 7-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Abe 4,883,338US in view of the US Patent Nakakuki 4,919513US.
In terms of Claims 1 and 12, Abe teaches a plastic optical fiber (Figure 2 and Column 3 lines 40-50 wherein plastic materials such propylene are used to form the fiber) comprising a core (Figure 2: 1), a first cladding adjacent to the core and, wherein the 1st cladding contain a light shield agent (Column 3 lines 35-40 teaches light interruption substance which is considered by the examiner as a light shield agent, wherein the light shielding agent is carbon black [Column 4, lines 10-15] which is the same material used by the applicant) and transmittance t1 of light having a wavelength of 650 nm at a film thickness of the first cladding (Figure 2: 1 contains a thickness, wherein fiber is able to handle visible light which has a range of 400-780 nm in wavelengths due the material of the resin of the core being methylmethacrylate [column 3 lines 45]. MMA or methylmethacrylate is a known material that is transparent to visible light bands of which wavelength 650 nm is within the visible light wavelength band of 400-780 nm). Abe does indicate that adding carbon black to cladding creates a trade-off of having optical loss at higher weight percentage (See Figure 4: wherein high weight will block light from getting in but at the same time create more transmission loss as shown in Table 4); wherein the content of the light-shielding agent contained in the first cladding is 100 to 10000 ppm (Column 4, lines 10-30 and Figure 4). Weight percentage is defined by the following equation below:
W
e
i
g
h
t
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
=
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
P
P
M
10000
Abe discloses weight percentage to be less than .2 (See Column 2, lines 20-30 or Figure 4). When one solves for the concentration in PPM we get the following:
P
P
M
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
=
w
e
i
g
h
t
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
x
10000
This produces a value of 2000 ppm of carbon black in the 1st cladding layer of which is within the ranges of 100 to 10000 ppm.
Abe does not teach a second cladding outside the first cladding, wherein both first cladding and the second cladding contain a light- shielding agent; and a transmittance t2 of the light having a wavelength 650 nm at a film thickness of the second cladding having a relationship wherein t1 > t2.
Nakakuki does teach a second cladding outside the first cladding (Figure 3: 2a and 2b), wherein the second cladding contain a light- shielding agent (Carbon black; Column 4, lines 60-67); and a transmittance t2 of the light having a wavelength 650 nm at a film thickness (Column 1, lines 60-67 teaches the fiber can handle visible light spectrum which contains the wavelength 650nm) of the second cladding having a relationship wherein t1 > t2 (See Column 4 lines 10-20: wherein 2b is opaque while cladding 2a maintains transparency). Base on trade off indicated by Abe one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 1st cladding layer of Abe to be have low levels of carbon to ensure low loss, while incorporating a second cladding layer having high concentration of carbon black to make it opaque in order to block light from outside from getting into the fiber and prevent light from the core and 1st cladding from getting out. The application of a 2nd cladding as taught Nakakuki will produce a fiber having better transmission efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Abe to have a 2nd cladding layer wherein the second cladding layer contains a light shielding agent made with carbon black to effectively block out unwanted light via a secondary layer. The secondary layer allows the fiber to be optimized by reducing the light amount of carbon black in the 1st layer which improves optical transmission loss effects. Further, having two layers that block out external light provides additional protection to external light in case one layer gets damage on its surface.
In regard to claim 2, Abe and Nakakuki teach the device of claim 1, wherein Abe teaches wherein the light-shielding agent contained in the first cladding is carbon black (Column 4, lines 1-15).
In regard to claim 5, Abe and Nakakuki teach the device of claim 1, wherein the light shield agent is in the 1st cladding to external light from getting into the core.
Abe / Nakakuki do not teach wherein a content of the light- shielding agent contained in the second cladding is in a range of 100 to 10000 ppm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 2nd cladding layer to have similar carbon black concentration profile to 1st cladding to optimize the ability to block light mainly at 0.2% as shown in Figure 4 which blocks almost all external light from getting into the core. 0.2% concentration as indicated above in the rejection of Claim 1 will produce a value within the ranges of 100 to 10000 ppm. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In regard to claims 7 and 13, Abe and Nakakuki teach the device of claims 1 and 5.
Abe does not teach wherein the light-shielding agent contained in the second cladding is carbon black.
Nakakuki does teach a second cladding outside the first cladding (Figure 3: 2a and 2b), wherein the second cladding contains a light- shielding agent (Carbon black; Column 4, lines 60-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Abe to have a 2nd cladding layer wherein the second cladding layer contains a light shielding agent made with carbon black to effectively block out unwanted light via a secondary layer. The secondary layer allows the fiber to be optimized by reducing the light amount of carbon black in the 1st layer which improves optical transmission loss effects. Further, having two layers that block out external light provides additional protection to external light in case one layer gets damage on its surface.
In regard to claims 8 and 14, Abe and Nakakuki teach the device of claims 1 and 5, wherein Abe teaches the light-shielding agent contained in the first cladding is made of carbon black materials Column 3 lines 35-40 teaches light interruption substance which is considered by the examiner as a light shield agent, wherein the light shielding agent is carbon black [Column 4, lines 10-15] which is the same material used by the applicant).
Abe does not teach wherein the light shield agent contained in the second cladding is carbon black; and the light-shielding agent contained in the second cladding are made of the same material, and a light-shielding agent content D1 of the first cladding and a light-shielding agent content D2 of the second cladding have a relationship of D1 < D2.
Nakakuki does teach wherein the light shield agent contained in the second cladding is carbon black (Carbon black; Column 4, lines 60-67); and the light-shielding agent contained in the second cladding are made of a same material, and a light- shielding agent content D1 of the first cladding (Abe light block agent is carbon black as detailed in rejection 1; Nakakuki light block agent is also carbon black [Carbon black; Column 4, lines 60-67]) and a light-shielding agent content D2 of the second cladding have a relationship of D1 < D2 (As detailed in the rejection of Claim 1, Abe indicates higher concentration of carbon black cause higher transmission loss, hence the need to combine with Nakakuki wherein the second layer can be opaque while maintain lower levels of carbon black in the 1st cladding layer). This will produce the relationship of “a light-shielding agent content D2 of the second cladding have a relationship of D1 < D2” as recited above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon black levels of 1st cladding layer D1 to be less than the carbon black of 2nd cladding layer in order to optimize the optical transmission of the device.
In regard to Claims 15, Abe / Nakakuki teach the device of claim 1.
Abe / Nakakuki do not teach wherein the wherein a plastic optical fiber forming film thickness T1 of the first cladding and a plastic optical fiber forming film thickness T2 of the second cladding have a relationship of T1< T2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the 1st cladding relative to 2nd cladding wherein the relationship of T1< T2 for the purpose of providing further mechanical protection to the cable since the 2nd cladding is an outer layer that can be easily damaged. This modification is tradeoff between cost and additional durability to the optical fiber, however in environments wherein the fiber can be easily damaged due to repeated movement. In this situation durability will be prioritized over material cost to ensure the fiber lasts a long time. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe 4,883,338US / Nakakuki 4,919513US as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent to Meleshkevich 7,839,901US.
In regard to Claim 4, Abe/ Nakakuki of Claim 1, having a core, 1st cladding and 2nd cladding.
Abe / Nakakuki do not teach wherein a refractive index of the second cladding is larger than a refractive index of the first cladding.
Meleshkevich does teach an optical fiber having a core (Figure 3: 164), a inner clad (Figure 3: 166), and an outer layer (280) that can function as outer clad layer to inner clad layer (Figure 3: 280 on the outside of 166), wherein the outer clad layer (280) has a index of refraction greater than the inner clad (Column 6, lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refractive index of the outer or 2nd clad layer of Abe / Nakakuki to the outer clad layer to function as a light stripper to remove excess heat from the optical fiber. This modification protects the fiber from overheating (Column 6, lines 40-60).
In regard to Claims 9, Abe / Nakakuki / Meleshkevich teach the device of claim 4.
Abe / Nakakuki / Meleshkevich does not teach wherein the wherein a plastic optical fiber forming film thickness T1 of the first cladding and a plastic optical fiber forming film thickness T2 of the second cladding have a relationship of T1< T2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the 1st cladding relative to 2nd cladding wherein the relationship of T1< T2 for the purpose of providing further mechanical protection to the cable since the 2nd cladding is an outer layer that can be easily damaged. This modification is tradeoff between cost and additional durability to the optical fiber, however in environments wherein the fiber can be easily damaged due to repeated movement. In this situation durability will be prioritized over material cost to ensure the fiber lasts a long time. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe 4,883,338US / Nakakuki 4,919513US as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Kimura 2014/0341518US.
In regard to claim 10, Abe / Nakakuki teaches the device of claim 1.
Abe / Nakakuki does not teach wherein the core is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and a numerical aperture NA of the core and the first cladding is 0.65 or less.
Kimura teaches a plastic optical fiber having a core (Figure 1: 11a) and a clad (Figure 1: 11b) wherein the fiber wherein the core is made of polymethyl methacrylate ([0091] fiber is made of PMMA), and a numerical aperture NA of the core and the first cladding is 0.65 or less ([0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plastic material to be PMMA because PMMA is a known plastic material having good flexibility, wherein the NA allows for high bandwidth transmission ([0086], thus producing a fiber with good flexibility and ideal for high bandwidth transmission [0021] and [0025]).
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe 4,883,338US / Nakakuki 4,919513US as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent to Isham 10,429,517US.
In regard to claim 11, Abe / Nakakuki teaches the device of claim 1.
Abe / Nakakuki do not teach wherein the optical fiber is used a medical sensor.
Isham teaches a plastic optical fiber (Column 8, lines25-35), wherein the fiber has a multi-clad design (Column 8, lines25-35), used in medical applications as a sensor (Column 11, lines 1-20), wherein plastic fiber is made of PMMA which is a known flexible material for medical application such as PSD (Column 1, lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fiber in a medical sensor such as a PSD sensor because plastic fibers are a low cost with flexible properties of which are ideal to be used within the human body (Isham’s Column 3, lines 50-67 and Column 4, lines 1-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application to Boyden 2016/0245990US teaches a plastic optical fiber having cladding and made PMMA used in medical sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights