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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1 and 5 are indefinite for reasons cited below and the specification fails to define or describe the claimed limitations of (1) “a radial position where a relative refractive index difference has a value which is 0.45 time the relative refractive index difference at a core center is defined as a core radial position” and (2) “in a range of 5% inside the core radial position, a location where the relative refractive index difference exhibits a locally high local maximum value delta M and a location where the relative refractive index difference exhibits a locally low local minimum value delta m.” The specification lacks antecedent basis for the claimed terms of “relative refractive index”. While refractive index is a known term, it is not clear what the relative refractive index is and the specification does not define the term. The specification describes the relative refractive index difference in [0011] as shown in Fig. 1 however this description is not in terms of an absolute refractive index and is only relative amounts and therefore not clear nor definite and indistinguishable from prior art.
[0011] FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a refractive index distribution of a core glass rod. A vertical axis represents a relative refractive index difference Δ(r) at a radius r, and the relative refractive index difference Δ(r) is obtained as Δ(r)=(n−n.sub.2)/n.sub.1, where n is the refractive index at the radius r, n.sub.1 is the refractive index at a core center, i.e., at the radius r=0, and n.sub.2 is the refractive index at a clad. In FIG. 1, a core radius, i.e., a radial position r.sub.0.45, where the relative refractive index difference is 0.45 times that at the center, is 11.6 mm. Also, a ratio between the radial position r.sub.0.75, where the relative refractive index difference is 0.75 times that at the center, and the radial position r.sub.0.45, i.e., r.sub.0.75/r.sub.0.45, is 0.921.
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 and dependent claims 2-4 and 5 and dependent claims 6-8 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 and 5 recites “a radial position where a relative refractive index difference has a value which is 0.45 time the relative refractive index difference at a core center is defined as a core radial position”. The claim is indefinite as it fails to recite a refractive index nor a location at which the refractive index is measured. The claims as written do not distinguish the invention from prior art.
Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation “in a range of 5% inside the core radial position, a location where the relative refractive index difference exhibits a locally high local maximum value delta M and a location where the relative refractive index difference exhibits a locally low local minimum value delta m.” The claim is indefinite as there is no refractive index claimed and no location for measuring the refractive index.
Claims 1 and 5 additionally claim “and a value of delta M – delta m which does not exceed 0.04%. For purposes of examination, the claim limitations are interpreted to be a minimum variation of the relative refractive index in the core and as well as a difference in relative refractive index between the core and the radial position in the core of 0.45 times the core center position. As no actual relative refractive index values are claimed, the claims are interpreted to be a difference in relative refractive index within the core and a radial location of the core.
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, 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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (JP 2002148466).
Claim 1: An optical fiber preform, when manufactured by manufacturing a core glass preform
composed of
a core portion and
a part of a clad portion, and
then providing a remaining part of the clad portion on outside of the core glass preform,
characterized in that, in the core glass preform, a radial position where a relative refractive index difference has a value which is 0.45 times the relative refractive index difference at a core center is defined as a core radial position,
then there is, in a range of 5% inside the core radial position, a location where the relative refractive index difference exhibits a locally high local maximum value ΔM and a location where the relative refractive index difference exhibits a locally low local minimum value Δm and a value of ΔM-Δm which does not exceed 0.04%.
Nagayama is directed to an optical fiber and its manufacturing method. Nagayama teaches an optical fiber capable of surely reducing a transmission loss caused by a Rayleigh scattering loss or the like and its manufacturing method. An optical fiber preform 2 in which the ratio of viscosity Rη=η0/ηt of the core average viscosity η0 to the whole average viscosity ηt becomes 2.5 or less is manufactured and is drawn in a line drawing furnace 11 to form the optical fiber 3. Thereafter, the optical fiber 3 is heated at a temperature within a prescribed range in a heating furnace 21 provided in the post stage and the optical fiber 3 is gradually cooled. At this time, a virtual temperature Tf within the optical fiber is lowered and the Rayleigh scattering loss is reduced. Simultaneously, the concentration of stress on the core is controlled by the condition Rη<=2.5 of the ratio of viscosity and the occurrence of a structural irregular loss or the like is reduced. Thus, the optical fiber and its manufacturing method by which the transmission loss as a whole is surely reduced are obtained (ABST).
Nagayama teaches the core region has an average relative refractive index difference Δ n 0 is, to satisfy 0.01% ≦ Δn 0 ≦ 0.12% condition, may be characterized in that the chlorine is added.
Nagayama teaches the Cl, an additive for increasing the refractive index, is used.(Chlorine) has little effect on transmission loss, etc. It can be handled in the same way as a two- core optical fiber. The addition of Cl also reduces the viscosity of the core. At this time, the core region may be configured to have a graded-type refractive index distribution in the region (page 5, top - google patents machine translation).
Nagayama teaches an optical fiber preform per claim 1 and the method of making the optical fiber preform per claim 5. Nagayama does not measure the properties as claimed of relative refractive index difference has a value which is 0.45 times the relative refractive index difference at the core center nor the delta M (difference in locally high relative refractive index in the core) and delta m (difference in the locally low relative refractive index). Nagayama measures the difference in relative refractive index in the core is 0.01% to 0.12% and Nagayama teaches the addition of chlorine to reduce viscosity and provide for increasing refractive index and the relative refractive index difference of 0.01% to 0.12%. Therefore Nagayama teaches a method of optimizing the core relative refractive index as well as the relative refractive index difference in the core. The claims require the difference in relative refractive index (by a different measure) is not to exceed 0.04% (claims 1 and 5); not to exceed 0.03% (claims 2 and 6); not to exceed 0.02% (claims 3 and 7) and not to exceed 0.01% (claims 4 and 8) and Nagayama overlaps the claimed range.
It is reasonable to presume that the properties of the claims is inherent to Nagayama as Nagayama teaches methods of producing the optical fiber preform that reduces and optimizes the relative refractive index difference in the core. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the relative refractive index difference in the core by using chlorine motivated to reduce the viscosity when manufacturing and the transmission loss.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Urata (US 20210215473) Urata is directed to an optical fiber preform and measurement of the core of the preform. Urata teaches the core portion has a relatively high refractive index and clad portion of relatively low refractive index [0011]. Urata provides Fig. 3 of the concept of a refractive index ratio of an optical fiber preform [0020].
PNG
media_image1.png
488
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights