DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Sept. 12, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the Examiner interprets a glass preform and optical fibre as the material worked upon in the apparatus. Applicant recites a claim limitation directed towards the glass preform diameter, the Examiner interprets, this limitation as representing a size limitation of the apparatus. The Examiner will broadly interpret the term “retrofitted” in claim 1.
In claim 8, the Examiner interprets a glass preform and optical fiber as the material worked upon in the apparatus.
In claim 8, the Examiner interprets lines 1-5 after the term “a sealing felt” up to the term “comprising” as the preamble of the claim. Therefore, the optical fibre draw furnace has not been positively recited and is not required in claim 8. Further, the positioning of the sealing felt with the pre-defined distance above the optical fibre draw furnace is in the preamble of the claim, and the positioning is interpreted as intended use and does not further limit the claim, since the optical fibre draw furnace is recited in the preamble of the claim and not positively recited in the claim. The Examiner interprets lines 6-13 as the body of the claim.
Additionally, the wherein statement in lines 11-13 in the body of the claim recites limitations based on the intended use of the apparatus, and is therefore, interpreted as such.
In claim 11, Applicant has recited a property of the material worked upon by the apparatus (i.e. the drawn optical fiber), and is therefore, interpreted as manner of operating the device/intended use of the apparatus.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical and grammatical errors. In line 20, “at drawing speed” should be “at a drawing speed” and in line 20, “meter per minute” should be “metre per minute” to match line 21. 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “wherein the sealing felt is retrofitted on the optical fibre draw furnace without additional adjustments”. This statement is indefinite since additional adjustments are relative to the optical fiber draw furnace, and it is unclear to the Examiner what defines the scope of “additional adjustments” relative to the optical fiber draw furnace. Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN106746592A – hereinafter Cheng) in view of Ponader (US 2020/0369553), Fujimaki et al. (JP06279045A – hereinafter Fujimaki), and Argaw et al. (US 2019/0359517 – hereinafter Argaw).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng (Figs. 1-3, [0032], and [0042]) discloses a sealing felt (“graphite felt baffle ring 2” and “graphite felt 3”) positioned on top of a support 61 of the optical fiber draw furnace (“fiber drawing furnace 6”). Cheng illustrates the sealing felt (i.e. graphite felt baffle ring and graphite felt) is positioned at a pre-defined distance above the optical fiber draw furnace. Cheng (Figs. 1-3, [0029]-[0030], and [0044]) discloses the sealing felt as having an opening of the enclosure (“sealing fitting hole 31”) (corresponding to a first opening) utilized to hold a glass preform as the glass preform is inserted in the optical fiber draw furnace and discloses a second opening of the enclosure (“inert gas introduction hole 22”), wherein the second opening facilitates input of a gas or gases inside the optical fiber draw furnace. Alternatively, if it is interpreted the second opening (i.e. inert gas introduction hole 22) does not sufficiently provide for input of a gas or gases inside the optical furnace, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, based on the structure of the base 1, and the drawing furnace support 61, gases introduced into the second introduction hole diffused into the graphite felt is introduced into the furnace.
Regarding wherein the sealing felt is retrofitted on the optical fiber draw furnace without additional adjustments, Cheng (Figs. 1-3, [0013], and [0029]) illustrates a base 1 having a mating cavity for the sealing felt (“graphite felt baffle ring 2” and “graphite felt 3”) and states the base is a disc-shaped base arranged on drawing furnace support 61 that is placed at the top entrance of optical fiber drawing 6. Based on the structure disclosed by Chen, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the arrangement of the sealing felt at the top of the entrance of the drawing furnace within base 1 arranged on drawing furnace support 61 with a disc-shaped base having a mating cavity provides for the sealing felt is retrofitted on the optical fiber draw furnace with additional adjustments to the drawing furnace.
Cheng fails to disclose details of the optical fiber draw furnace, such as the claimed hollow cylindrical structure or one or more heating elements. However, Ponader (Fig. 1, [0003], and [0030]) teaches a drawing furnace is provided with a tube and a heater and heating elements in a drawing furnace. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Ponader, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the fiber drawing furnace of Cheng comprising a tube (corresponding to a hollow cylindrical structure) comprising a glass preform positioned inside the hollow cylindrical structure and one or more heating elements for melting the glass preform.
As discussed above, Chen discloses the sealing felt is positioned at a pre-defined distance on top of a drawing furnace support 61 at the top entrance of the optical fiber draw furnace. The Examiner interpreted the top of support 61 as the top of the draw furnace. Cheng is silent as to the exact positioning of the sealing felt relative to the top of the optical fiber draw furnace, and therefore, fails to disclose the pre-defined distance is in a range of 10-20 cm above the optical fiber draw furnace. However, Cheng ([0029]-[0030]) further teaches the sealing felt requires cooling (i.e. by base 1) and Fujimaki (Fig. 3 and [0011]) teaches temperature distribution characteristics of a drawing furnace including that temperature decreases as the distance from the heater increases. Therefore, based on the additional disclosure by Cheng, specifically cooling of the sealing felt, and teachings by Fujimaki, specifically temperature decreases as distance from the heater increases, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cooling of the sealing felt can be affected by the distance of sealing felt from the drawing furnace, since it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the temperature experienced by the sealing felt is relative to the pre-defined distance from drawing furnace, and therefore, it would be obvious to optimize.
Cheng fails to disclose the glass preform diameter is greater than 50 mm. As stated in the claim interpretation above, the Examiner interprets the glass preform as the material worked upon by the apparatus, and the size of the preform as a size limitation of the apparatus. Ponader ([0035]) teaches conventional optical fiber preforms having an outer diameter ranging from 90 to 150 mm. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Ponader, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide for a sealing felt and optical fiber draw furnace that supports glass preforms having a diameter ranging from 90 mm to 150 mm, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of greater than 50 mm.
Cheng fails to disclose the optical fiber draw furnace supports high speed drawing of the glass preform at a drawing speed in a range of 2500 meters per minute to 3500 meters per minute. However, Argaw ([0038]) discloses to meet market demand for optical fiber and reduce fiber manufacturing costs, there is a need to increase fiber draw speeds. Argaw discloses drawing speeds of greater than 50 m/s including for example draw speeds ranging from 50 m/s to 80 m/s (3000 m/min to 4800 m/min). Based on the additional teachings of Argaw, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide for an optical fiber draw furnace of Cheng to support increased drawing speeds to meet market demand and reduce fiber manufacturing costs, such as greater than 50 m/s including for example draw speeds ranging from 50 m/s to 80 m/s. This modification provides for a draw furnace that can support high speed drawing of the glass preform at a drawing speed with a range that overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 2500 meters/min to 3500 meters/min.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, obviousness of Cheng in view of Ponader provides for a sealing felt and optical fiber draw furnace that supports glass preforms having a diameter ranging from 90 mm to 150 mm, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of about 100 mm to 150 mm.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Cheng (Figs. 1-3, [0029]-[0030], and [0044]) discloses a second opening of the enclosure (“inert gas introduction hole 22”), wherein the second opening facilitates input of a gas or gases inside the optical fiber draw furnace. Cheng ([0030]) further discloses an inert gas, such as argon. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Cheng wherein the gas comprises argon or other inert gases.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cheng et al. (CN106746592A – hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng (Figs. 1-3, [0032], and [0042]) discloses a sealing felt (“graphite felt baffle ring 2” and “graphite felt 3”) positioned on top of a support 61 of the optical fiber draw furnace (“fiber drawing furnace 6”). Cheng illustrates the sealing felt (i.e. graphite felt baffle ring and graphite felt) is positioned at a pre-defined distance above the optical fiber draw furnace. Cheng (Figs. 1-3, [0029]-[0030], and [0044]) discloses the sealing felt as having an opening (corresponding to a first opening) of enclosure along the optical fiber preform (“sealing fitting hole 31”) utilized to hold a glass preform and a second opening of the enclosure (“inert gas introduction hole 22”), wherein the second opening facilitates input of a gas or gases inside the optical fiber draw furnace. Alternatively, if it is interpreted the second opening (i.e. inert gas introduction hole 22) does not sufficiently provide for input of a gas or gases inside the optical furnace, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, based on the structure of the base 1, and the drawing furnace support 61, gases introduced into the second introduction hole diffused into the graphite felt introduced into the furnace.
As stated in the claim interpretation above, the Examiner interprets the position of the sealing felt at a predefined distance in a range of 10-20 cm above the optical fiber draw furnace such that drawing breaks per 10,000 km length of drawn optical fiber has an upper control limit of about 1.47, as intended of the sealing felt or manner of operating. Per MPEP 2144.II. the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Accordingly, Cheng provides for the structure required for a sealing felt claimed in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above, Cheng (Figs. 1-3, [0029]-[0030], and [0044]) discloses a second opening of the enclosure (“inert gas introduction hole 22”), wherein the second opening facilitates input of a gas or gases inside the optical fiber draw furnace. Cheng ([0030]) further discloses an inert gas, such as argon. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Cheng wherein the gas comprises argon or other inert gases.
Regarding claim 11, as stated in the claim interpretation above, Applicant has recited a property of the material worked upon by the apparatus (i.e. the drawn optical fiber), and is therefore, interpreted as manner of operating the device/intended use of the apparatus. Per MPEP 2144.II. the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Accordingly, Cheng provides for the structure required for a sealing felt claimed in claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Sept. 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. There are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment filed Sept. 12, 2025. For claims 1, 4, and 5 the same combination of references Cheng, Ponader, Argaw, and Fujimaki are still applied. For claim 8, the Examiner Applied the Cheng reference, and for claims 10 and 11 there are new grounds of rejection due to the significant change in scope to the claims.
The Examiner notes there is a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claims 1, 4, and 5 due to the amendment filed Sept. 12, 2025.
The Examiner notes there is no patentable weight given to the positioning of a sealing felt in the apparatus of claims 8 and 10-11, as the positioning in the preamble and lines 11-13 of claim 8 is interpreted as intended use/manner of operating the apparatus. Accordingly, arguments against the positioning of the sealing felt in claims 8 and 10-11 as a critical parameter does not apply, since the positioning does not add patentable weight to these apparatus claims. Additionally, it is noted that unexpected results is a secondary consideration with respect to obviousness, and it is not relevant to the structure claimed in apparatus claims 8 and 10-11, which includes a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng.
Patentable weight is given to the positioning of a sealing felt the apparatus of claims 1 and 4-5, and the Examiner will address arguments against claims 1 and 4-5.
In the Remarks filed Sept. 12, 2025, Applicant (pg. 5) quotes a large section of the response to arguments from the final rejection dated May, 28, 2025. Applicant then states, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s statement that “the data provided indicates that there is a combination of factors that affect draw breaks, not just positioning of the sealing felt”. Applicant states the sealing felt material (which is not provided in the claim), argon flow rates (which are not claimed), draw speed, and preform material) as constant throughout the experiment. Applicant then submits importance of parameters during optical fiber drawing, such as supply of inert gas and quality of the preform could lead to other problems such as optical degradation along with a large number of breaks, and submits fiber drawn at very high speed would inherently lead to more breaks. Applicant then states that the position of the sealing felt is a critical parameter. Applicant then reiterates criticality by providing additional statements in reference to the affidavit/declaration filed Feb. 15, 2025, and also appears to make additional statements in the arguments that were not in the affidavit filed Feb. 15, 2025, such as the such as the draw furnace made of stainless steel, preforms etched by HF, impurities in the drawing environment, and additional data in the line chart (item 5), which were not provided in the affidavit. Please see MPEP §716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In summary, Applicant states based on the above given pointers 1-5 on pgs. 7-8, Applicant believes the experimental data shared in the affidavit/declaration document is commensurate in scope with the apparatus claim. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant, because the claims are Apparatus claims and it is clear that the manner of operating the apparatus, the material worked upon, and the drawing environment can affect draw breaks and proof testing of the material worked upon by the apparatus. Accordingly, as stated in the “Affidavit/Declaration” section in the non-final office action dated Mar. 6, 2025 and the final rejection dated Jun. 18, 2025, the claims are apparatus claims, and the data provided indicates that there is a combination of factors that provide for draw breaks, not just the positioning of the sealing felt in an apparatus. Therefore, for the apparatus claims, the Examiner did not find sufficient evidence from the affidavit filed Feb. 15, 2025 that the position of the sealing felt is the only critical factor affecting draw breaks.
Applicant (pgs. 8-9) of the Remarks submits Cheng fails to disclose claim elements “wherein the sealing felt is retrofitted on the optical fiber draw furnace without additional adjustments, wherein the predefined distance is in a range of 10-20 cm above the optical fiber draw furnace” and “wherein the optical fiber draw furnace supports high speed drawing of the glass preform at drawing speed range of 2500 meter per minute to 3500 metre per minute.” Applicant then on pgs. 9-10 of the Remarks details the structure of the apparatus of Chen, and then makes statements that, as disclosed in Cheng, the sealing felt placed may be placed beyond the claimed range of the instant invention which is 10-20 cm above the optical fiber draw furnace which will lead to 4 bullet points.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection is based on the combination of Cheng in view of Ponader, Fujimaki, and Argaw. Cheng is silent as to the positioning of the sealing felt, there are no dimensions recited for base 1 in Cheng which is illustrated above the optical fiber drawing furnace 6 having drawing support seat 61. Additionally, the Examiner has applied the teachings by Fujimaki regarding the temperature distribution characteristics of a drawing furnace and the disclosure by Cheng that the sealing felt requires cooling by base 1. Therefore, based on the additional disclosure by Cheng, specifically cooling of the sealing felt, and teachings by Fujimaki, specifically temperature decreases as distance from the heater increases, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cooling of the sealing felt can be affected by the distance of sealing felt from the drawing furnace, since it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the temperature experienced by the sealing felt is relative to the pre-defined distance from the drawing furnace, and therefore, it would be obvious to optimize. Additionally, Applicants statements in the Remarks that the sealing felt may be placed beyond the claimed range and this placement leads to problems summarized in 4 bullet points is merely speculation, and not supported by any firm evidence.
Applicant makes a statement that Argaw discloses that the drawing speed can be greater than 3000 meter per minute, and then makes statements that the claimed optical fiber drawing apparatus discloses an improved system that enables flexibility for increasing drawing speed along with keeping breaks and PT to a minimum. These are merely statements drawn to the manner of operating the apparatus, and the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 over Cheng in view of in view of Ponader, Fujimaki, and Argaw provide for the structural limitations claimed in claim 1. It is noted that Argaw provides for drawing speeds that overlap Applicant’s claimed range, and Applicant has admitted on the record that drawing speeds greater than 3000 meters per minute, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range are known in the art. This modification provides for a draw furnace that can support high speed drawing of the glass preform at drawing speeds overlapping the claimed range of 2500 meter per minute to 3500 m/min Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the combination of references provides for the obviousness of the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding the arguments against proof drawing breaks per km, as claimed in claim 8, and PT breaks per km length of drawn optical fiber, as claimed in claim 11, are directed towards intended use/manner of operating the apparatus and are not given patentable weight.
Applicant at the bottom of pgs. 11 and on pg. 12 of the Remarks re-iterates the claim language and emphasizes what problem the invention is intended to solve. Applicant then argues the presumption of obviousness based on a disclosure of a range in the prior art. The Examiner has provided the Argaw reference to provide for obviousness that the drawing apparatus of Cheng would be modified to provide for the claimed drawing speeds, and as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Cheng discloses cooling of the sealing felt and the temperature distribution of the drawing furnace is affected by the distance from the heater. Therefore, based on the additional disclosure by Cheng, specifically cooling of the sealing felt, and teachings by Fujimaki, specifically temperature decreases as distance from the heater increases, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cooling of the sealing felt can be affected by the distance of sealing felt from the drawing furnace, since it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the temperature experienced by the sealing felt is relative to the pre-defined distance from drawing furnace, and therefore, it would be obvious to optimize. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the combination of the references along with the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, would provide for the claimed apparatus of claim 1.
In Pgs. 13-15 of the Remarks, Applicant reiterates the claim language, objectives the apparatus solves, and again highlights the placement of the sealing felt. Then Applicant references paragraphs [0051], [0053], [0055], [0056], and [0072] in the specification.
Next, pgs. 15-20 focus on the significance of the claimed range. Applicant discusses the evidence from the affidavit filed Feb. 15, 2025 and in the Remarks dated Sept. 19, 2024. Applicant states the sealing felt is placed at intervals starting from its original position till 20 cm above the drawn furnace, where the original position ranges anywhere from 0 to 5 cm. Applicant makes statements about the standard deviation in the Remarks about the range and the standard deviation. Applicant makes statements about the draw breaks/10 K km by position data, which is summarized in the table below:
Distance (cm)
Range of Draw Breaks/10 k km
Standard Deviation
0-5
2-5
4
5
3-4
3
10
2-3
2
15
1-2
1-2
20
1.5-2.5
2
In the original position (0-5cm), there is a draw break value of 2 in the chart, which provides for a values that overlaps all of the ranges, and the 5 cm position appears to have LCL and UCL values that overlap the 10 cm range. Additionally, while Applicant makes a statement about the sealing felt positioned more than 20 cm the inert gas requirement increases, but makes no statements about data for draw breaks and there is no data outside of this range, which also suggests the criticality of the claimed positioning with regards to breaks is not the only factor, but the flow of gas, and the other factors mentioned previously also affect draw breaks. Additionally, while the standard deviation appears to decrease from 10-20 cm, there is no data regarding values outside of the 20 cm range, and Applicant makes no statement about the statistical significance of the overlapping ranges and standard deviation. Additionally, as stated previously, it appears the manner of operating the apparatus, such as the argon flow rate, the impurities in the drawing environment, and even the material the sealing felt is made of affects draw breaks and proof testing of the optical fiber, and therefore, the data is not commensurate in scope with the apparatus claim, and therefore, the Examiner maintains the declaration is insufficient to overcome the prior art.
Applicant makes statement about the data for the proof testing breaks in the drawn optical fiber that are summarized in the table below.
Distance (cm)
Range of PT Breaks/10 k km
Standard Deviation
0-5
7-9
8.5
5
7-8
7.5
10
6.5-7
6.5
15
4-6
5
20
4.5-7
6
In the table there is some overlap, where it appears there is a preform with 7 breaks/10k km and in the chart, it appears the 5 cm position, the UCL and LCL significantly overlap with the 10 cm and Applicant makes no statement about the statistical significance of the overlapping ranges and standard deviation. Additionally, as stated previously, it appears the manner of operating the apparatus, such as the argon flow rate, the impurities in the drawing environment, and even the material the sealing felt is made of affects draw breaks and proof testing of the optical fiber, and therefore, the data is not commensurate in scope with the apparatus claim, and therefore, the Examiner maintains the declaration is insufficient to overcome the prior art. Therefore, with the other additional factors, such as Ar Flow rate, sealing felt composition, equipment factors, and impurities in the environment/equipment and/or the material worked upon, there was insufficient evidence that the position of the sealing felt is the only critical factor for the draw breaks and proof testing results for the drawn optical fiber, and since it appears the manner of operating the apparatus, such as the argon flow rate, the impurities in the drawing environment, and even the material the sealing felt is made of, is not commensurate in scope with the apparatus claim, and therefore, the Examiner maintains the declaration and evidence is insufficient to establish criticality of the pre-defined distance in claim 1. As stated previously, the Examiner notes the pre-defined distance is not required in claims 8 and 10-11
Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 4-5 over Cheng in view of Ponader, Fujimkai, and Argaw and the rejection of claims 8 and 10-11 over Cheng.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741