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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 4, “ultraviolet rays” should say “ultraviolet rays.” in order to close the sentence with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
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 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the ultraviolet rays” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20020184924 A1; hereafter Choi), as evidenced by Koike et al. (US 20020044749 A1; hereafter Koike).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an optical fiber coating layer forming device (Fig. 1) that forms a coating layer on an outer peripheral surface of an optical fiber ([0002]), the optical fiber coating layer forming device comprising:
an optical fiber coating layer forming mold (Fig. 1; [0029]; dies 320 and 330);
a liquid resin dispenser ([0029]; resin supplying device) that supplies a liquid resin ([0030]; UV curable resin) to the optical fiber coating layer forming mold ([0029-0030]);
and a light source that irradiates ultraviolet rays (Fig. 1; [0030]; resin hardening device 340 emits UV light) to the liquid resin supplied to the optical fiber coating layer forming mold ([0030]), wherein the optical fiber coating layer forming mold comprises:
an upper mold (Fig. 1; [0029]; top die 330) having a first facing surface (Fig. 1, 10; bottom surface of top die 330 facing the optical fiber 10);
and a lower mold (Fig. 1; [0029]; bottom die 320) having a second facing surface that faces the first facing surface (Fig. 1, 10; top surface of bottom die 320 facing the optical fiber 10),
the first facing surface has a first groove (Fig. 1; [0030]; groove 330a), the second facing surface has a second groove (Fig. 1; [0030]; groove 320a), the first groove and the second groove are connected with each other and constitute a main molding space (Fig. 1, 10; grooves 330a and 320a together form a molding space for optical fiber 10) in which the liquid resin is filled,
and at least one of the first facing surface and the second facing surface has an expansion recessed portion (Marked Fig. 10; expansion recessed portion) that constitutes an expansion space expanding from the main molding space in a width direction of the main molding space (Marked Fig. 10), the width direction being orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the main molding space and a facing direction in which the first facing surface and the second facing surface face each other (Marked Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
729
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses the optical fiber coating layer forming device according to Claim 1, wherein the upper mold transmits ultraviolet light (Fig. 1; [0036]; the material of the dies and/or the device for transmitting UV light is configured such that UV light must be capable of transmitting through the die to reach the UV curable resin), and an upper surface of the expansion space that constitutes the upper mold comprises a light blocking film (Fig. 10; [0030]; shading layer 14 blocks UV light so it can be irradiated effectively along the longitudinal direction of the optical fiber 10) that blocks the ultraviolet rays. As evidenced by Fig. 6A-6C and [0074] of Koike, the shading layer 14 of Choi is a UV-blocking layer/film.
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses the optical fiber coating layer forming device according to Claim 1, wherein both of the upper mold and the lower mold transmit ultraviolet light (Fig. 1; [0036]; the material of the dies and/or the device for transmitting UV light is configured such that UV light must be capable of transmitting through the die to reach the UV curable resin), and at least one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the expansion space comprises a light blocking film (Fig. 10; [0030]; shading layer 14 blocks UV light so it can be irradiated effectively along the longitudinal direction of the optical fiber 10) that blocks the ultraviolet rays. As evidenced by Fig. 6A-6C and [0074] of Koike, the shading layer 14 of Choi is a UV-blocking layer/film.
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses an optical fiber coating layer forming mold (Fig. 1; [0029]; dies 320 and 330) for forming a coating layer on an outer peripheral surface of an optical fiber ([0002]), the optical fiber coating layer forming mold comprising:
an upper mold (Fig. 1; [0029]; top die 330) having a first facing surface (Fig. 1, 10; bottom surface of top die 330 facing the optical fiber 10);
and a lower mold (Fig. 1; [0029]; bottom die 320) having a second facing surface that faces the first facing surface (Fig. 1, 10; top surface of bottom die 320 facing the optical fiber 10),
wherein the first facing surface has a first groove (Fig. 1; [0030]; groove 330a), the second facing surface has a second groove (Fig. 1; [0030]; groove 320a), the first groove and the second groove are connected with each other and constitute a main molding space (Fig. 1, 10; grooves 330a and 320a together form a molding space for optical fiber 10) in which a liquid resin is filled,
and at least one of the first facing surface and the second facing surface has an expansion recessed portion (Marked Fig. 10; expansion recessed portion) that constitutes an expansion space expanding from the main molding space in a width direction of the main molding space (Marked Fig. 10), the width direction being orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the main molding space and a facing direction in which the first facing surface and the second facing surface face each other (Marked Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses the optical fiber coating layer forming device according to Claim 1, wherein the lower mold transmits ultraviolet light (Fig. 10; [0030]; bottom die 320 transmits UV light, such as through the light emission introduction section 320a), and a lower surface of the expansion space that constitutes the lower mold comprises a light blocking film (Fig. 10; [0030]; shading layer 14 blocks UV light so it can be irradiated effectively along the longitudinal direction of the optical fiber 10) that blocks ultraviolet rays. As evidenced by Fig. 6A-6C and [0074] of Koike, the shading layer 14 of Choi is a UV-blocking layer/film.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20020184924 A1; hereafter Choi), in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110789057 A; hereafter Zhang; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses the optical fiber coating layer forming device according to Claim 1, wherein the lower mold has an introduction port (Fig. 2A; [0030]; resin supplying port 320b of the bottom die 320) through which the liquid resin is introduced to the main molding space.
Choi does not disclose a width of the expansion space increases as a distance from the introduction port increases in the longitudinal direction.
However, in the analogous art Zhang teaches an optical fiber coating layer forming device (Fig. 1; [0005, 0007]; mold system for forming an insulation layer onto an optical fiber) comprising an expansion space formed in a groove (Fig. 1; [0034]; front injection area 4-1-2) between an upper mold (Fig. 1; [0008]; upper mold) and a lower mold (Fig. 1; [0008]; lower mold), wherein a width of the expansion space increases (Fig. 1; [0034]; front injection area 4-1-2) as a distance from an introduction port (Fig. 1; [0034]; left injection channel 6) increases in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1; the axis of the optical fiber).
Choi and Zhang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of coating optical fibers using molds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Choi with the teachings of Zhang to provide a width of the expansion space increases as a distance from the introduction port increases in the longitudinal direction. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would reduce air bubbles in the molding area (Zhang [0018]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20020184924 A1; hereafter Choi), in view of Kanai et al. (US 20040037528 A1; hereafter Kanai).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the optical fiber coating layer forming device according to Claim 1.
Choi does not explicitly disclose a height of the expansion space is 2 µm to 50 µm.
However, in the analogous art Kanai teaches an optical fiber coating layer forming device (Fig. 4; [0003]) comprising an expansion space formed in a groove (Fig. 4; [0007]; resin guide path 16) between an upper mold (Fig. 4; [0007]; mold form 11B) and a lower mold (Fig. 4; [0007]; mold form 11A), wherein a height of the expansion space is 2 µm to 50 µm ([0046]; the height of the resin guide path 16 was 0.05 mm).
Choi and Kanai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of coating optical fibers using molds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Choi with the teachings of Kanai to provide a height of the expansion space is 2 µm to 50 µm. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would suppress the generation of significant turbulence in the proximity of the expansion space and therefore suppress the retention of bubbles (Kanai [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
