Patent Application 18176677 - OPTICAL FIBER WITH AN ATTENUATION REDUCTION - Rejection

Patent Application 18176677 - OPTICAL FIBER WITH AN ATTENUATION REDUCTION

Title: OPTICAL FIBER WITH AN ATTENUATION REDUCTION REFRACTIVE INDEX (RI) PROFILE

Application Information

• Invention Title: OPTICAL FIBER WITH AN ATTENUATION REDUCTION REFRACTIVE INDEX (RI) PROFILE
• Application Number: 18176677
• Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-03-01T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-03-01T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 385
• National Sub-Class: 123000
• Examiner Employee Number: 81215
• Art Unit: 2874
• Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0299289🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

DETAILED ACTION

Drawings
Three sheets for formal drawings were filed March 1, 2023 and have been accepted by the Examiner.

Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.   

Claim Objections
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the average ratio is in a range of 5.52 µm to 5.75 µm” is objected to because a ratio is unitless when it expresses the relationship between two quantities that have the same unit of measurement.  For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered “the average ratio is in a range of 5.52 to 5.75”.
Appropriate correction is required.



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 1-4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bookbinder et al. (US 2016/0299289 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bookbinder discloses an optical fiber (Fig. 1A, 2A), comprising: a core (102) extending along a central axis of the optical fiber, wherein the core is up-doped with at least a first up-dopant and a second up-dopant (Table 1A, Examples 1-14; core is doped with Ge and Cl); an inner cladding (104, 106A) surrounding the core, wherein the inner cladding is up-doped with at least the second up-dopant (Tables 1B-1C, Examples 1-14; both regions 104 and 106A are doped with Cl); and an outer cladding (106B) surrounding the inner cladding, wherein the outer cladding is un-doped (Table 1D, Examples 1-5; region 106B is undoped).  
Regarding claim 2, Bookbinder discloses the core, the inner cladding, and the outer cladding has a refractive index Δ1, a refractive index Δ2, and a refractive index Δ3, respectively, such that the refractive index Δ1 is greater than the refractive index Δ2 and the refractive index Δ2 is greater than the refractive index Δ3 in Fig. 2A.  
Regarding claim 3, Bookbinder discloses the core has a relative refractive index Δ1% that is in range 0.2 % to 0.4 %, wherein the inner cladding has a relative refractive index Δ2% that is in range 0.01 % to 0.05 %, and wherein the outer cladding has a relative refractive index Δ3% that is equal to 0% in Fig. 2A and Tables 1A-1D, Examples 1-5.  
Regarding claim 4, Bookbinder discloses the core up-doped with first and second up- dopants, the inner cladding up-doped with the second up-dopant, and the un-doped outer cladding 106 generates a Refractive Index (RI) profile that is defined by a core peak and an inner cladding peak, wherein the core peak is greater than the inner cladding peak in Fig. 2A.
Regarding claim 18, Bookbinder discloses the core has a radius R1 that is in range of 4 m to 4.5 µm, wherein the inner cladding has a radius R2 that is in a range of 14 µm to 15 µm, and wherein the outer cladding has a radius R3 that is in range 61.5 pm to 62.5 µm in Tables 1A-1D and Fig. 2A.
Regarding claim 19, Bookbinder discloses the radius R1, the radius R2, and the radius R3 is given by an average ratio (R3 - R1)/ (R2 - R1), wherein the average ratio is in a range of 5.52 to 5.75 in Tables 1A-1D and Fig. 2A.
Regarding claim 20, Bookbinder discloses the core has a thickness TI and the inner cladding has a thickness T2 such that the thickness T2 is greater that the thickness T1 in Fig. 2A.

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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder et al. (US 2016/0299289 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bookbinder teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the core peak and the inner cladding peak has a peak radial distance.  However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed distance, since 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.
Regarding claims 6-11, Bookbinder discloses the core and the inner cladding has the second up-dopant in first and second weight percentages, respectively, wherein the first weight percentage is less than the second weight percentage in Tables 1A-1C.  Bookbinder teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the concentration or volume of the dopants.  However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed amounts in order to arrive at the desired refractive indexes, and since 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.
Regarding claim 12, Bookbinder discloses the relative refractive index of the inner cladding is radially distributed in Fig. 2A.  Bookbinder teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the minimum and maximum values.  However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed values, since 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.
Regarding claims 13-17, Bookbinder discloses the optical fiber having low attenuation in paragraph 0003 and measuring the macrobend loss using a mandrel test in paragraph 0045.  Bookbinder teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the value of the attenuation and macrobend loss.  However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed attenuation and macrobend loss in order to have high transmittance, and since 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.


Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655.  The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797.  The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.

Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/           Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874                                                                                                                                                                                                        May 15, 2025