DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on August 13, 2026. Claims 10-18 are pending (claims 15-18 are “Withdrawn” from consideration as being related to non-elected Groups).
Claims 10-14 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits, with claim 10 as the sole examined independent claim.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 10-14, in the reply filed on August 13, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on January 23, 2025, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (three (3) pages) were received on January 23, 2025. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding each dependent claim 12, 13, and 14, the term “…the center” should read “…the center of the optical fiber preform” for consistency with independent claim 10. Notably, claim 12 includes fluctuations only in the “outer region”, claim 13 has fluctuations both in the “outer” and “inner” regions, while claim 14 include a core glass region in comparison to the center of the preform itself. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Dependent claim 13 recites the limitation "the fluctuation region” and “the fluctuation” in the claim body. However, the terms “a/the fluctuation region” and “a/the fluctuation” already appear in independent claim 10. Therefore, and although “inner / outer” regions are defined, Applicant should re-draft such terms. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation(s) in the claim(s), based on the requirements of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For an example, Applicant may use language such as “a second part” and “a second fluctuation” in dependent claim 13 in order to clearly and unequivocably claim the subject matter with proper antecedent basis.
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.
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 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino Sumio et al. JP 2013 – 056786 A (Sumitomo).
Hoshino Sumio et al. JP 2013 – 056786 A (Sumitomo) teaches (ABS; Fig. 5; Example 1; English Translation (see IDS filed on January 23, 2025), noting paragraphs [0002], [0018] – [0020], [0025], [0026], [0037] – [0040]; Claims) an optical fiber preform having a refractive index profile (para [0002], see the glass base which is a preform material; Example 1), the optical fiber preform comprising: a fluctuation region (para [0020]) in which a fluctuation of a refractive index is repeated, wherein the fluctuation consists of an increase in the refractive index and a decrease in the refractive index ([0020]), increase and decrease of refractive index), at least a part of the fluctuation region is in an outer region at a distance of equal to or greater than 7 mm from a center of the optical fiber preform (noted as in para [0038], [0040], the distance from a center is greater than 7 mm (at least 8 mm, as the fluctuations are located external to the center, at about 8 – 12.5 mm).
Regarding independent claim 10, the close prior art of JP ‘786 does not expressly and exactly teach one single embodiment (in which the fluctuation region is at a greater distance than 7 mm), AND in which a width of the fluctuation in a radial direction of the optical fiber preform is less than 2 µm in the outer region.
However, other parts and discussions found within JP ‘786 itself teach similar uses and functionality of the defined optical fiber preform with measurements of the refractive index profile (the laser method(s) as in paras [0018] – [0019]; note Table 1). Additionally, the prior art of JP ‘786 teaches that at smaller widths of fluctuations, an improvement in suppression of diffraction occurs, with an example of 0.6 um as width (para [0025], [0026]). Therefore, picking smaller fluctuation widths, in the micron range(s), would be recognized from JP ‘786 itself to improve accuracy of measurements, and to realize those fluctuations (of less than 2.0 um).
Therefore, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such having small widths of the fluctuations in the radial direction, such as being 2.0 um or less, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected JP ‘786 to perform equally well with such features as the fluctuation widths, because the prior art reference itself notes reasons and motivations for using very small fluctuation widths, such as 0.6 um, and to be found in an outer region. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with the very small fluctuations (2.0 um or less) in the outer region of JP ‘786. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) JP ‘786 to obtain the invention as specified in sole examined independent claim 10. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding further dependent claim 11, in the hypothetical combination of features outlined in claim 10 above, the width of the fluctuation would have been obvious to be less than 2 um in the whole region, based on the teachings found within JP ‘786 and the amount of fluctuation down to 0.6 um. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 12, and based on drawing / stretching manufacturing processes, the dimensions of the fluctuation being increasing toward a center (of the outer region, inner region, or the entire preform itself) would have been obvious based on the manufacturing tolerance. KSR. Therefore, such increase width closer to a center would have been an obvious selectable results of the process (to POSITA).
Regarding claim 13, having fluctuations in an inner region of JP ‘786 (a region less than 7 mm from the center of the preform) is implied based on that prior art reference Example 1 and Fig. 5 (fluctuations throughout), and further having larger fluctuation widths in the inner region would have been obvious design choice based on the numerous designs (smaller up to 0.6 um; larger micron measured amount) in JP ‘786. Therefore, claim 13 is found as an obvious combination of features found within JP ‘786 with clear motivation to combine with the prior art itself. KSR.
Regarding claim 14, core and cladding, with a cladding having a different refractive index in comparison to the core, is found throughout the optical fiber art itself (ubiquitous), and further, the featured core only being within an “inner” region of the preform defined by less than 7 mm from a center is implied by JP ‘786’s optical fiber design. KSR.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. JP H11 199263 A1 (Sumitomo), and further in view of Hoshino Sumio et al. JP 2013 – 056786 A (Sumitomo).
Regarding claim 10,Yokoyama et al. JP H11 199263 A1 (Sumitomo) teaches (ABS; Case 3; Fig. 4; English Translation (see IDS filed on January 23, 2025), noting para [0015]; Claims) an optical fiber preform having a refractive index profile (a glass (fiber) base which is a preform material; Fig. 4, Case 3), the optical fiber preform comprising: a fluctuation region (para [0015]) in which a fluctuation of a refractive index is repeated, wherein the fluctuation consists of an increase in the refractive index and a decrease in the refractive index (Yokoyama preform features; having increase and decrease of refractive index), in which a width of the fluctuation in a radial direction of the optical fiber preform is less than 2 µm in the outer region (fluctuation shown as approximately 1.5 um in Yokoyama).
Regarding independent claim 10, Yokoyama JP ‘263 does not expressly and exactly teach one single embodiment in which at least a part of the fluctuation region is in an outer region at a distance of equal to or greater than 7 mm from a center of the optical fiber preform.
Hoshino Sumio et al. JP 2013 – 056786 A (Sumitomo) teaches (ABS; Fig. 5; Example 1; English Translation (see IDS filed on January 23, 2025), noting paragraphs [0002], [0018] – [0020], [0025], [0026], [0037] – [0040]; Claims) an optical fiber preform having a refractive index profile (para [0002], see the glass base which is a preform material; Example 1), the optical fiber preform comprising: a fluctuation region (para [0020]) in which a fluctuation of a refractive index is repeated, wherein the fluctuation consists of an increase in the refractive index and a decrease in the refractive index ([0020], increase and decrease of refractive index), at least a part of the fluctuation region is in an outer region at a distance of equal to or greater than 7 mm from a center of the optical fiber preform (noted as in para [0038], [0040], the distance from a center is greater than 7 mm (at least 8 mm, as the fluctuations are located external to the center, at about 8 – 12.5 mm).
Since JP ‘263 and JP ‘786 are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by JP ‘786 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of JP ‘263.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of JP ‘786, to have an outer region of at least 7 mm (8 mm or more in JP ‘786), with fluctuation features, as part of the measurements and tolerances of the base design of the optical fiber preform of JP ‘263, for a sizing constraint choosable by a normally skilled artisan. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having an outer region of a preform larger than 7 mm. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 10 is found obvious over JP ‘263 and further in view of JP ‘786.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A (to Hebgen US ‘634) and B (to Okada US ‘390), which pertain to the state of the art of optical fibers and preforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights