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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 31, 2025 and November 11, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011-102915A in view of Oishi et al (US 5,835,656).
JP2011-102915A disclose an optical fiber manufacturing method (see paragraph [0009]), as illustrated in Figures 1-4, comprising a fiber splicing step (see paragraph [0001]) of splicing a first optical fiber wound around a first bobbin and a second optical fiber wound around a second bobbin to produce a third optical fiber (see Figures 3A-3B and paragraphs [0022]-[0023]); a fiber winding step of winding the third optical fiber around the second bobbin, in an optical fiber rewinding machine (see paragraphs [0022] – [0025]). However, JP2011-102915A doesn’t discuss a screening step of feeding the third optical fiber from the second bobbin, screening the third optical fiber, and winding the third optical fiber around a third bobbin.
Oishi et al teaches a coated optical fiber, a process and an apparatus for fabricating a coated optical fiber. Oishi et al discussed a conventional optical fiber-screening rewinding machine can be used (col. 11, lines 30-33) for a delivered optical fiber from a bobbin and rewinding onto another bobbin for screening.
To provide the method of JP2011-102915A with a conventional optical fiber-screening rewinding machine for performing screening for a delivered optical fiber from a bobbin and rewinding onto another bobbin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Oishi et al, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the conventional optical fiber-screening rewinding machine used in Oishi et al would provide efficiency and improve process quality of the delivered optical fiber from a bobbin and rewinding onto another bobbin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011-102915A in view of Oishi et al (US 5,835,656) and JPH06249726A.
JP2011-102915A disclose an optical fiber manufacturing method (see paragraph [0009]), as illustrated in Figures 1-4, comprising a fiber splicing step (see paragraph [0001]) of splicing a first optical fiber wound around a first bobbin and a second optical fiber wound around a second bobbin to produce a third optical fiber (see Figures 3A-3B and paragraphs [0022]-[0023]); a fiber winding step of winding the third optical fiber around the second bobbin, in an optical fiber rewinding machine (see paragraphs [0022] – [0025]). It is best understood that the optical fiber manufacturing method of steps S1-S6 is accomplished based on machinery. However, JP2011-102915A doesn’t discuss a screening step of feeding the third optical fiber from the second bobbin, screening the third optical fiber, and winding the third optical fiber around a third bobbin and providing first and second capstans.
Oishi et al teaches a coated optical fiber, a process and an apparatus for fabricating a coated optical fiber. Oishi et al discussed a conventional optical fiber-screening rewinding machine can be used (col. 11, lines 30-33) for a delivered optical fiber from a bobbin and rewinding onto another bobbin for screening.
To provide the device of JP2011-102915A with a conventional optical fiber-screening rewinding machine for performing screening for a delivered optical fiber from a bobbin and rewinding onto another bobbin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Oishi et al, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the conventional optical fiber-screening rewinding machine used in Oishi et al would provide efficiency and improve process quality of the delivered optical fiber from a bobbin and rewinding onto another bobbin.
In addition, JPH06249726A teaches a screening apparatus for linear material comprising a first capstan section for winding a running linear material and a second capstan section disposed on the downstream side and driven individually (see page 2, under (57) [Overview]).
To provide the device of JP2011-102915A with a first capstan section and a second capstan section would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of JPH06249726A, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the first capstan section and second capstan section used in JPH06249726A would provide efficiency and streamline the first bobbing and the second bobbin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carson, Wagatsuma, Botelho, Koyano, Fewkes, and Fabian are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses an optical fiber manufacturing method comprising a fiber splicing step and a fiber winding step.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
