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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/01/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Final Rejection filed 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 17 have been Amended , as are Claims 8 and 9 (typographical errors). Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 12, 13, and 17 in the dated 05/13/2026 have been considered, due to the amendment filed 05/13/2026 there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment. The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues,
The Office Uses Impermissible Hindsight -
The Office combines 5 disparate references starting with a reference for an optical forming
apparatus and ending with a reference concerning a bundle of molten fibers. The Applicants
reference the MPEP and case law (MPEP § 2145, X.A. (quoting KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007)), TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The Office’s Modification Does Not Read on the Claim -
A PHOSITA, by combining the references, would not have reached the destination as claimed of
“the cooling device comprising from 2 to 6 bodies. Dubois teaches fast cooling device that is
20cm long a slow cooling device that is 5m long, not hollow cylindrical bodies with planar top
and bottom surfaces and an outer diameter greater than the height and gas outlets within the
body as cited in Claim 1. Hemker is then relied upon to supply the missing structural features.
Hemker does not teach 2 to 6 bodies and there lacks motivation by Hemker to do so. Accepting
the Office’s combination would result at most of one Hemker quench assembly substituted for
one of Dubois’ cooling zone, not 2 to 6 bodies.
No Reasonable Expectation of Success –
That Office contends a PHOSITA would have substituted a quench assembly of Hemker for both
fast cooling and slow cooling zones of Dubois, the Office had not shown there would have been
a reasonable expectation of success. As the size of the cooling of the cooling device of Dubois
and Hemker are significantly different, Hemker would destroy the fictive temperature
optimization of Dubois (the entire purpose of Dubois).
Hemker Teaches Away from the New Gas Velocity Feature
The new feature of "the one or more gas outlets directing the gas toward the optical fiber AT an
average velocity of about 20 m/s to about 350 m/s" overcomes the rejection, with Hemker
clearly teaching away, citing MPEP and case law ( MPEP § 2145, X.D.2 (citing In re Grasselli, 713
F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and MPEP § 2143.01, I (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,
73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Hemker does not teach a high velocity targeted gas
impingement on a single optical fiber through disc-like bodies and affirmatively discourages the
new feature of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13 Applicant argues,
Claim 12 - The porous structure of Hemker is not a plurality of nozzles and does not have a similar
function as a nozzle – it is the antithesis of one. Hemker provides a porous structure with multi-
directional orifices. As Hemker provides diffused gas flow and avoids nozzle-like gas stream, the
device of Hemker is structurally and functionally different than a nozzle that directs discrete streams
of gas at the fiber.
Claim 13 – The Offices has calculated a total flow through the Hemker ring, not from an individual
nozzle and Hemker lacks a nozzle to measure a per nozzle flow rate. If calculated, Hemker’s per-pore
flow rate would be a vanishingly small fraction of a standard liter per minute – orders of magnitude
below the claimed range (5-100 SLPM per nozzle). A PHOSITA would not optimize the gas flow
because the porous Hemker structure is incapable of delivering 5-100 SLPM through any individual
orifice and doing so would require the high velocity jets Hemker warns against.
Regarding Claim 17 Applicant argues,
The Amended Claim contains the same cooling device features of Claim 1, plus the specific
sequence of the cooling device ( 2 to 6 bodies), followed by the flame reheating device, followed
by the slow cooling device, followed by the slow cooling device downstream of the flame
reheating device where the rejection of the Office merely places the flame reheating and
cooling devices merely downstream of the draw furnace without addressing relative order. The
is absent a flame reheating device between Dubois’ fast and slow cooling devices. Further,
inserting a flame reheating device between the fast and slow cooling zones of Dubois would
destroy calibration between the two cooling profiles. A PHOSITA would not have arrived at the
claimed sequence cooling device/flame reheating device/slow cooling device.
Note, Claim 17 does not include the new gas velocity limitation of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1 - In response to the Applicant’s Arguments the Examiner replies,
The Office Uses Impermissible Hindsight -
Respectful disagreement. The 5 references are not disparate as Foster 786, Foster 762,
Nagayama and Dubois all relate to fiber draw apparatuses with components and/or devices
that are heating or cooling devices. Hemker is analogous to the 4 previous references in that a
device for cooling fiber from a fiber draw is the context. Specifically, Hemker is not relied upon to teach a bundle of molten fibers. Hemker is relied upon to teach a cooling device and its
limitations. The secondary references to the primary reference Foster ‘786 follow two
reference lines as noted by the Applicant but each reference line supports a different set of
limitations in the claim. Further, the motivations to combine are noted from the references
themselves, not the Applicant’s specification/disclosure. It must be recognized that any
judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper, In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971), MPEP 7.37.03.
The Office’s Modification Does Not Read on the Claim –
Respectfully disagree. Dubois Fig. 2 illustrates element 10 (fast cooling device ) and element 11
(slow cooling device) that are cylindrical shaped, have parallel and planar top and bottom
surfaces, and allow a fiber to pass through (i.e. hollow to some extent). The Examiner agrees
that Dubois does not disclose an outer diameter greater than the height and gas outlets within
the body as cited in Claim 1, yet the Office did not cite to replace the cooling devices of Dubois
with the device of Hemker. In the Final Rejection dates 03/16/2026, Page 16 reads “ modify the
cooling devices of Dubois with the structure of Hemker”, where the devices of Dubois capture 2-
6 bodies, and where the modification of Hemker would provide an outer diameter greater than
the height within the body as well as gas outlets, with Hemker providing motivation for the
structural modifications (Col 2 lines 6-9, Col 4 lines 3-4).
No Reasonable Expectation of Success –
The Applicant’s argument for “reasonable expectation of success” is based on the size of the
Hemker cooling device in relation to the size of the Dubois cooling devices, and that the Hemker
cooling device would destroy the fictive temperature optimization of Dubois. Note, Claim 1 is
absent any limitations regarding cooling devices related fictive temperature performance. The
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not
clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the
state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not
show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Further, the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Having stated the above, the Applicant has stated an opinion as to whether the use of Hemker
provides a reasonable expectation of success and cannot take the place of evidence in the
record. In re Schultze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). See also MPEP
716.01(c)(II).
Hemker Teaches Away from the New Gas Velocity Feature
Respectful disagreement. While Hemker discloses a high velocity jet of air provides limitations
(damages surfaces of the filaments), Hemker does not indicate a high velocity jet of any cannot
be used with the device. A reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be
done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As well, it has
been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching
away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiment, In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423. Also,
it has been held that a reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment, but must be
evaluated for all of its teachings, including its teachings of non-preferred embodiments, In re
Burckel, 201 USPQ 67). Further, Hemker is not relied upon to teach a high velocity targeted gas
impingement on a single optical fiber. Hemker is relied upon to teach a structure of a cooling
device. The new feature of “the one or more gas outlets directing the gas toward the optical
fiber at an average velocity of about 20 m/s to about 350 m/s", is a statement of intended use
of the cooling device; there are other claim limitations which are statements of intended use
that were cited (Claim 3 – inert gases) and one claim not cited previously as intended use
as there was a reference that reads on the instant claim (Claim 13 – 5 SLPM to
100 SLPM).
The choice of “the one or more gas outlets directing the gas toward the optical fiber at an
average velocity of about 20 m/s to about 350 m/s" is an intended use of the apparatus and
does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to
the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the
claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural
limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See
also, MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 12 - In response to the Applicant’s Arguments the Examiner replies,
Respectful disagreement. The Applicant in the Arguments indicates “Hemker provides a porous
structure with multi- directional orifices”. An orifice and a nozzle both have openings. There is no
requirement that Hemker must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be
deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis
verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2009). Again, that the function of Hemker differs, as suggested by the Applicant, is of no
consequence. Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the
patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Regarding Claim 13 - In response to the Applicant’s Arguments the Examiner replies,
Respectful disagreement. The Office has merely stated the it would have been obvious to optimize
gas flow for the structure of Hemker, not how the gas flow is optimized. The Examiner is in
agreement with the Applicant that the per-pore flow rate would be a vanishingly small fraction of a
standard liter per minute at the hole size and the pressure (0.5psig) of Example in Cols 4-5. The
Applicant in response has focused on the pressure only for flow optimization. One could optimize
flow by larger pore size at 5 psig. A PHOSITA could calculate that a hole size of 776um at 5psig would
produce 5 SLPM for all the holes in the device of Hemker. Further, Hemker is not used to teach a
measuring device for flow and the instant claim of the apparatus does not claim a measuring device
for flow.
Regarding Claim 17 - In response to the Applicant’s Arguments the Examiner replies,
Respectful disagreement. The Examiner’ response to Claim 1 applies to those same limitations in
Claim 17. Dubois discloses a cooling device (12) of two bodies (a fast cooling and a slow cooling
body, elements 10 and 11, respectively) that is located after the bottom of the draw and before
the coating device (element 5), See Fig. 2. Argaw, in similar endeavor, discloses first a slow cooling
device at the bottom of the draw (similar to Dubois) , and then a flame reheating device 110
followed by a treatment device 120 that is operable to cool the optical fiber [0027], Fig. 2)
before coating unit 50. The combination of Dubois and Argaw provides a sequence
after the bottom of the draw, but before a coating unit, of a cooling device, a flame reheating
device, and a cooling device, which reads on Amended Claim 17. Argaw provides motivation for the
sequence to reduce fictive temperatures (reduce Rayleigh scattering) and attenuation,
([0003], [0004], [0005] Fig. 5).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 11, 13-17, 21– the claimed ranges for respective attributes are inclusive. Example: Claim 9 – the inlet of the tube has an inner diameter of 1.27cm to 2.54cm, includes the values 1.27 cm and 2.54 cm.
Examiner Note: The intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. Below is/are a list of claims/limitations that are interpreted as intended use:
Regarding an aspect of Claim 1 – in regard to the cooling device of 2 to 6 bodies, “directing gas toward an optical fiber at an average velocity of about 20m/s to about 350m/s” is an intended use of a use of an apparatus
Regarding Claim 3, 19 – using “ inert gas comprises one or more of argon, nitrogen and helium” is an intended use of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 13 – using “ a volumetric flow rate from each gas nozzle is about 5 standard liters per minute to about 100 standard liters per minute” is an intended use of an apparatus.
Regarding an aspect of Claim 30 – “characterized as an optical resonator structure” is a mere claiming of a use of a particular structure and would not be entitled to weight in the method.
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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 2007022786A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster786”), in further view of PGPUB 20020178762A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster762”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,637,130 by Nagayama et. al. (herein “Nagayama”) and in further view of PGPUB 20010006262A1 by Dubois et. al. (herein “Dubois”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,709,970 by Hemker et. al (herein “Hemker”).
Regarding Claim 1, Foster786 teaches:
An optical fiber forming apparatus comprising: a draw furnace. See [0035], Lines 1-4 which discloses a draw furnace in an optical fiber forming apparatus; Fig. 2, element 100/120.
a muffle with an inner surface; [0037], Lines 4-5, " An annular sleeve-like susceptor 126 (which may be, for example, formed of graphite) extends through the draw furnace 120 and defines a passage 130 therein; Fig. 2, element 126 [0038] lines 5-10. “the draw furnace 120, as described and illustrated, is merely exemplary of suitable draw furnaces and it will be appreciated that those skilled in the art that draw furnaces of other designs and constructions, for example, using other types of heating mechanisms, susceptors and insulation, etc. may be employed.” The Examiner understands this to mean susceptors with induction heating, or muffles with electric heating, and variations thereof, are included in the art.
an axial opening below the muffle; Fig. 2, element 124, [0037] Lines 4-7, "An axial opening 124 is defined in the flange 123 through which the fiber 110 passes and through which the previously dropped glass gob may pass.". The axial opening 124 is at the bottom of the draw furnace, below all other physical aspects of the draw furnace.
the inner surface of the muffle defining part of a passageway extending through the axial opening. Fig. 2, elements 126, 130; [0037], Lines 5-10, “An annular sleeve-like susceptor 126 (which may be, for example, formed of graphite) extends through the draw furnace 120 and defines a passage 130 therein. The passage 130 includes an upper section (part of the passageway) adapted to receive and hold the optical fiber preform 102 and a lower section through which the drawn fiber 110 passes as glass is melted and drawn off from the preform 102. The gob, formed at the initiation of drawing also passes through this section. The lower section of the passage 130 communicates with the opening 124.” Fig. 2 illustrates the remaining part of the passageway below the muffle extending through the axial opening.
an upper inlet into the passageway; Fig. 2, element 138, [0038]. "A suitable inert forming gas FG, most preferably helium, is introduced into the passage 130 at about 1 atmosphere of pressure through a suitable flow inlet 138".
Foster786 fails to teach,
a tube that extends into the passageway of the draw furnace above the axial opening with the tube having an outer surface and the inner surface of the muffle surrounding the outer surface of the tube,
with a space separating the outer surface of the tube from the inner surface of the muffle,
an inner surface that defines a second passageway extending through the tube, an inlet into the second passageway of the tube, and an outlet of the second passageway of the tube
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Foster762 teaches a tube 160 that extends into the passageway of the draw furnace 120 above the axial opening 124 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tube of Foster762 in the device of Foster786 to protect the fiber from turbulent flow and reduce fiber diameter variation, as noted by Foster762 ([0027]).
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Nagayama teaches a fully separated tub and an inner surface that defines a second passageway extending through the tube, an inlet into the second passageway of the tube, and an outlet of the second passageway of the tube; Fig. 3, elements 24/S1/S2/22a, Page 11, Col 6 Lines 40-53. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to make the tube separate from the muffle so as “to not increase the gas flow rate and gas pressure in the vicinity of the lower molten portion of the preform due to gas flowing into the inner furnace core tube 24. For this reason, any deflection of the drawn optical fiber and any variation in the diameter thereof can be inhibited” as noted by Nagayama (Page 11-12, Col 6-7 lines 1-5, 64-67).
Foster786 further teaches that additional conventional steps may be included, such as a further fiber cooling apparatus [0035] but does not teach,
a cooling device at the outlet out of the second passageway of the tube, the cooling device comprising:
from 2 to 6 bodies,
for pairing of adjacent bodies, a distance separates the bottom surface of one of the adjacent bodies from the top surface of the other of the adjacent bodies.
the opening is configured to pass an optical fiber through the body,
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Dubois teaches a cooling device that consists of a fast-cooling device and a slow cooling device, placed one above the other, spaced apart by a distance that accommodates a fiber; Fig. 2, elements 7/12/10/11/h; Fig. 2, [0041]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the cooling device of Dubois in the apparatus of Foster786 to significantly reduce Rayleigh scattering and preserve the attenuation of the fiber while improving the mechanical strength of the fiber, as noted by Dubois ([0011], [0017]).
In further regard to the cooling device, Dubois fails to teach,
each of the bodies comprising a hollow cylindrical portion having a top surface that is planar and an opposing bottom surface that is planar,
a height between the top surface and the bottom surface,
an outer diameter parallel to the top surface that is greater than the height,
an opening within the body extending from the top surface through the body to the bottom surface,
the opening having a diameter within a range of from 2 mm to 100 mm,
wherein,
and one or more gas outlets within the body;
the opening is configured to direct a gas to contact the optical fiber as the optical fiber passes through the opening, the one or more gas outlets directing the gas toward the optical fiber at an average velocity of about 20 m/s to about 350 m/s.
In an analogous endeavor of cooling low denier thermoplastic resin filaments, Hemker teaches a device that comprises a)-g) above, in element 14 described as a quench assembly, of Fig. 3 (see annotated Fig. 3 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
592
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The quenching assembly is described (Col 3 lines 34-47), which includes an annular housing 16, annular porous structure 18, wide enclosed space 20, exterior porous structure wall 22, cooling gas ports 24 and 26. Element 12 is the spinneret assembly (Col 3 lines 58-59). Element 19 is a fiber. The size of the quenching assembly is ascertained by the following:
the solid porous structure is from about ¼”to about 1” high (Col 5 line 48, Col 6 line 1 for Claim 2)
the solid porous structure has “ a thickness (or width ) from about ¼ to ½ inch” (Col 3 lines 55-57)
a spinneret having a plurality of substantially evenly spaced holes the outer course of which has a diameter ranging from about 3 to about 7” (Col 6 lines 13-16 for Claim 4).
In reference to Fig. 3, if the spinneret is 3” in diameter and quench assembly must accommodate, then,
the inner diameter of the quench assembly must be near 3” (75mm), which reads on the instant claim.
Hemker further cites, “…a diffused cooling gas from multidirectional orifices…inwardly against the freshly extruded molten filaments” (Col 2 lines 65-72). Also, the device of Hemker is located below the spinneret ( which is below the molten thermoplastic material which is not shown) which is analogous to the Dubois cooling devices location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling devices of Dubois with the structure of Hemker to add to the apparatus of Foster786, one being motivated to do so to achieve provide good quality fibers at an increased production rate as well as stabilize and quench filaments without damaging or degrading the filament structure, as noted by Hemker (Col 2 lines 6-9, Col 4 lines 3-4). As a note, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While gas velocity is an intended use (See Claim Interpretation), using parameters of Hemker a PHOSITA can calculate a velocity, using a standard flow equation where velocity = Q/A, where Q is volume flow rate and A = area of hole:
Hole diameter: 100um
Hole area: .00785mm2
Plate thickness: 0.5”
Total holes/in2 (touching grid): 64,516 holes/in2
Total Gas Flux: 0.5ft3/min/in2
Flow per hole: .02655 SLM/hole
Velocity: ~ 60.5 m/s.
Regarding Claim 2, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches inert gas flows through an upper inlet and forms two separate gas streams, where the gas in each stream exits the draw furnace through different passageways; ; Fig. 3, elements 24/S1/S2/22a, Page 11, Col 6, Lines 20-26, 40-53. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have been motivated to make two separate gas streams (through the tube and in the space between the tube and the muffle) so as to gradually cool the fiber and inhibit and variation in fiber diameter, as noted by Nagayama (Page 12, Col 7 lines 6-13).
Regarding Claim 3, which is dependent on Claim 2, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Foster786 further teaches wherein the inert gas comprises one or more of argon, nitrogen or helium; Fig. 8, [0078], lines 1-5; " As shown in Figure 8, during the steps of drawing 403 and heat treating 405, an atmosphere preferably containing an inert gas is provided. The inert gas may be helium, nitrogen, argon, or a mixture thereof.” Although Foster786 teaches the instant claim, the choice of inert gas is an intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 5, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Foster786 further teaches an optical fiber pre-form disposed within the passageway of the draw furnace; optical fiber drawn from the optical fiber preform that extends through the second passageway of the tube; and a first heating element that heats the passageway of the draw furnace throughout a first range that encompasses a tip of the optical fiber preform; Fig. 2 elements 130/102A/136. [0036] Lines 1-2, [0037] Lines 9-18;
Regarding Claim 9, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Foster786 further teaches the inlet of the tube has a minimum inner diameter of 12mm; [0011], Lines 7-12. Furthermore, Foster762 teaches an inner diameter of the tube passage diameter preferably
between 25mm-75mm (equivalent to 2.5cm to 7.5cm), [0018], Lines 1-12). A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention was made would be motivated to modify the inner diameter of Foster762 to a smaller inner diameter to promote variation reduction in fiber diameter, as noted by Foster762 [0027].
Foster762 further teaches a cone positioned over the lower opening of the annular susceptor, where the tube extends above the narrowing and the tube extends through the opening: Fig. 1, elements 114/124/160/160A/160B/168/169, [0003], [0015], [0019], [0020], [0021]. “ A control tube extends through the exit opening of the drawing furnace…The control tube includes a first tube section and second tube section. The first tube opening and the first tube section are disposed in the furnace passage…The second tube opening and the second tube section are disposed downstream of the draw furnace”, “An exit or lower opening 124 is defined in the lower flange 112. A hollow exit cone 130 is positioned over the opening 124”, “An upper tube section 168 of the control tube 160 is disposed in passage 120 and extends from the opening 124 (i.e. the lower end of the draw furnace) to the upper end 160A”, “A lower tube section 169 extends from the opening 124 to the lower end 160B”. See Fig. 1, and a cut-out of Fig. 1 at the opening 124, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
779
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention was made would be motivated to modify the combination and add the hollow cone of and position the tube of Foster762 to create a buffer cavity 123 where 1) purge gas can be supplied through passages/hose 132/132A and 134/134A to keep oxygen out of the furnace during idle periods and 2) to isolate and protect the fiber from turbulent eddies and instabilities in the flow of forming gas G, as noted by Foster762 ([0026],[0027]).
Dubois further teaches the pairing of a cooling device with adjacent bodies, the distance separating the bottom surface of one of the adjacent bodies from the top surface of the other of the adjacent bodies is a height h of any value; Fig. 2, elements 12/11/10/h, [0041]. “Said cooling device 12 comprises a first fast cooling device 10…and a second slow cooling device 11. The two devices are placed one above the other, so delimiting a transition area 105 of height h. The height h can take any value”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination to set a distance between the two cooling devices to ensure the targeted fictive temperatures of the fiber are obtained, as noted by Dubois ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 10, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hemker further teaches gas inlets fluidly coupled to the gas outlets, “It has been found that the cooling gas must be delivered to the quenching means 14 through at least two substantially equidistant ports as 24 and 26 in the housing 16” (Fig. 3, Col 4, lines 11-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the cooling devices of Dubois with the gas inlet ports of Hemker to add to the apparatus of Foster786,
one being motivated to do so to provide an even distribution of gas around the structure, as noted by Hemker (Col 4, lines 14-15).
Regarding Claim 11, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the opening of each of the bodies of the cooling device has a diameter of about 10 mm to about 50 mm.
Hemker teaches an opening the quenching device of ~ 75mm but fails to teach an opening of about 10mm to 50mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the opening of the cooling device of Hemker, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to scale the size of opening of the cooling device of Hemker to be between 10mm and 50mm to provide a proper flow rate of cooling gas for stabilizing and quenching filaments, a noted by Hemker ([Col 4 lines 44-56).
Regarding Claim 12, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hemker further teaches one or more gas outlets is a plurality of nozzles. While Hemker does not explicitly cite the use of a nozzle, “ diffused cooling gas from multi-directional orifices” have a similar function as a nozzle. Per Merriam Webster, a nozzle: “a short tube with a taper or constriction to speed up or direct flow.” The multi-directional orifices of Hemker direct the flow of gas in a direction in a similar fashion as a nozzle. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior would be motivated to modify the combination with the structure of Hemker , one being motivated to do so to provide substantially uniform annular flow, as noted by Hemker (Col 2 line 65). Further, while the term nozzle and orifice are not the same terminology,
there is no requirement that Hemker must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to
be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis
verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
Regarding Claim 13, which is dependent on Claim 12, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination (Hemker) discloses a volumetric flow rate of each nozzle of (flow per hole)
.02655 SLM/hole but does not disclose
a volumetric flow rate of gas from each nozzle is about 5 standard liters per minute to about 100 standard liters per minute.
While gas flow rate is an intended use (See Claim Interpretation), the parameters (pressure, hole size) of Hemker can be optimized to provide a flow rate of 5 SLPM by optimizing pressure and hole size and PHOSITA can perform the calculation:
Q= Cd * A * (2 * ∆p)/d)1/2 where,
Q = flow rate, Cd = loss factor, A = area, ∆p= pressure differential, d = air density (1.2kg/m3). For a 776um diameter hole and 5psig (34,474 Pa):
Q1 = ((2* 34,474 Pa)/1.2)1/2 = 240m/s; multiply by loss factor 0.8 area:
Q= Q1 *0.473mm2 *240m/s = 5.44 SLPM.
V=Q/A, where V= velocity, Q flowrate, A= area.
V= 5.44SLPM/0.473mm2 = ~ 192 m/s (conversion factors not shown); 192 m/s is within the velocity of the limitation in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the gas flow for the structure of Hemker, 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. One would have been motivated to optimize the gas flow for the purpose of obtaining uniform fiber cross section, as noted by Hemker (Col 5, line 20). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB
2007022786A1Foster786”), in further view of U.S. PGPUB 20190292090A1 by
Anderson et.al (herein “Anderson”).
Regarding Claim 4, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Foster786 further teaches a first heating element that heats the passageway of the draw furnace throughout a first range that encompasses at least a portion of the passageway of the draw furnace above the inlet of the tube; Fig. 2, element 136. But Foster786 does not teach a second heating element that heats the passageway of the draw furnace throughout a second range that encompasses at least a portion of the passageway of the draw furnace above the first range.
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Anderson teaches the use of two heating elements (an upper heating element and a lower heating element) heating the draw furnace; Fig. 2 elements 58/22, [0005] Lines 1-14; [0054], lines 17-18. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Foster786 with the second heating element of Anderson, using a second heating element towards the top of the draw furnace muffle, to prevent flow instabilities of the drawn preform due to temperature and density stratification in the upper volume of the furnace system, as noted by Anderson ([0059] lines 33-38, [0062], lines 1-8, [0063], lines 22-29).
Regarding Claim 6 which is dependent on Claim 5, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Foster786 does not teach a second heating element that heats the passageway of the draw furnace throughout a second range that encompasses a portion of the passageway above a main body of the optical fiber preform. Anderson teaches the use of two heating elements (an upper heating element and a lower heating element) heating the draw furnace above the main body of the optical fiber preform. Fig. 1, elements 58/22, 54, [0005] Lines 1-14, [0054] Lines 17-18. Fig. 1 illustrates first heating element 22 and a second heating element 58, where the second heating element 58 is above the main body of the optical fiber preform 54. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Foster786 with the second heating element of Anderson, using a second heating element towards the top of the draw furnace muffle above the optical fiber preform, to prevent flow instabilities of the drawn preform due to temperature and density stratification in the upper volume of the furnace system, as noted by Anderson ([0059] lines 33-38; [0062] lines 1-8, [0063], lines 22-29).
Regarding Claim 7 which is dependent on Claim 6, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Foster786 teaches a third heating element that heats the passageway of the draw furnace throughout a third range that encompasses a portion of the second passageway of the tube; Fig. 2, element 168. [0040] Lines 1-6.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2007022786A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster786”), in further view of U.S. Patent Application 20020178762A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster762”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,079,433 by Smith (herein “Smith”).
Regarding Claim 8 which is dependent on Claim 5, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Foster786 teaches wherein the optical fiber exits the outlet of the tube at a rate of at least 20 meters per second; [0014], “greater than or equal to 15m/s”; Table 2 [0087]; Table 3 [0094]; but does not teach the fiber diameter after exiting the outlet of the tube having a standard deviation (σ) which is less than 0.06 um at frequencies of 0.1 Hz, 1 Hz, and 10 Hz. Foster762 teaches a fiber diameter standard deviation of less than 0.06um; [P0036] Lines 4-6. But Foster762 does not teach diameter standard deviation measurements at frequencies of 0.1Hz, 1Hz, and 10Hz. In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces , Smith teaches a measurement technique of fiber vibration frequency to control fiber tension and hence fiber diameter variation, comprising multiple fiber vibration frequencies including 0.1Hz, 1.0Hz, and 10Hz; Fig. 4/5, 5Page 6, Col 1 Lines 25-32; Col 2, Lines 68-69; Page 7, Col , Lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to examine particular frequencies of interest associated with a given fiber draw apparatus and given preform composition, 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. One would have been motivated to assess frequencies of interest, being 0.1Hz, 1.0Hz and 10Hz in the instant application, for the purpose of process optimization. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claims 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
Application 2007022786A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster786”), in further view of U.S. Patent
Application 20020178762A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster762”) and in further view of U.S. Patent
5637130 by Nagayama et. al. (herein “Nagayama”) and in further view of PGPUB 20010006262A1 by
Dubois et. al. (herein “Dubois”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,709,970 by Hemker et. al (herein
“Hemker”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 2,832,642 by Lennox (herein “Lennox”).
Regarding Claim 14 Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
Claim 14 -one or more gas outlets is a singular slot that has a width between 50 microns and 2mm.
In an analogous endeavor of cooling filaments from organic thermoplastics, Lennox teaches a cooling device that contains a hollow annular member having a slit circumscribing the member and facing generally towards the filaments where gas is fed into the annular member and is directed towards the filaments through the slit (Fig. 2/3, Col 1 lines 64-69). Further, the shim or gasket between the upper and lower segments is .003” (.003” * 25.4mm/in * 1000um/mm = 76um = 76 microns) and it is noted other suitable thicknesses of gasket material may be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of the combination with the structure of Lennox, being motivated to do so in that the sheet air produced by the modification does not have the degree of turbulence which is present for individual streams of gas, as noted by Lennox (Col 2 lines 70-72).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16 Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
Claim 15 - the gas outlets of each of the bodies of the cooling device direct gas toward the optical fiber at an angle of about 15 degrees to about 90 degrees from a vertical axis running in a direction of fiber conveyance.
Claim 16 - the gas outlets of each of the bodies of the cooling device direct gas toward the optical fiber at an angle of about 15 degrees to about 90 degrees from a vertical axis running in a direction of fiber counter- conveyance.
Lennox further teaches that the angle at which the fluid sheet strikes the filaments is controlled by the angular relationship between the surfaces 44 and 46 to direct the sheet of air upwardly. Further, Lennox cites the ability to direct air downwardly, that in one embodiment the nozzle (which is the cooling device) was turned upside down to direct the sheet downwardly (Col 3 lines 18, 23-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of the combination with the structure of Lennox, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of the ease of controlling cooling for different type of fibers, less production downtime, and more uniform fibers as noted by Lennox (Col 3 lines 6-12).
Further, in regard to the angle of directing cooling gas at the fiber, Lennox teaches an angle of directing airflow of 10 degrees which is satisfactory for general usage (Col 3 lines 18-19). While Lennox does not teach directing airflow from 15 degrees to 90 degrees from the vertical axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
optimize the cooling device of Lennox for the cooling device of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so as different fibers may require different angles of approach of the sheet of fluid, as noted by Lennox (Col 3 lines 14-21). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claims 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
Application 2007022786A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster786”), in further view of U.S. Patent
Application 20020178762A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster762”) and in further view of U.S. Patent
5637130 by Nagayama et. al. (herein “Nagayama”) and in further view of PGPUB 20010006262A1 by
Dubois et. al. (herein “Dubois”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,709,970 by Hemker et. al (herein
“Hemker”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,637,130 by and in further view of U.S. PGPUB
20190359517A by Argaw et. al (herein “Argaw”).
Regarding Claim 21 , Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois and Hemker as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While the combination discloses a drawing apparatus (Foster786) and a cooling device (12) of two
bodies (a fast cooling and a slow cooling body, elements 10 and 11, respectively) that is located after the
bottom of the draw and before the coating device (element 5) (Fig. 2 of Dubois), the combination does
not disclose,
a flame reheating device downstream from the draw furnace;
and a slow cooling device downstream of the draw furnace;
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Argaw discloses first a slow cooling device at the
bottom of the draw (similar to Dubois) , followed by a flame reheating device (element 110),
followed by a treatment device 120 that is operable to cool the optical fiber (Fig.2,[0027])
before coating unit 50. Hence, both the flame reheating device and the treatment device to cool the
optical fiber are downstream of the draw furnace. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the flame
reheating device and cooling device as arranged by Argaw in the apparatus of the combination as
one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of reheating the fiber and then cooling the fiber
on the draw apparatus to reduce fictive temperature (reduce Rayleigh scattering) and attenuation,
as well as eliminating the need for an increase in the height of the draw tower to do so, as noted by
Argaw ([0003], [0004], [0005], [0089] Fig. 5).
While the combination (Foster786) discloses wherein the optical fiber exits the outlet of a tube at a
rate “greater than or equal to 15m/s” [0014], which establishes the draw rate for the draw
apparatus, the combination does not disclose,
the flame reheating device is configured to heat the optical fiber by at least 100 degrees Celsius at a heating rate greater than 10,000 degrees Celsius/second;
Argaw further discloses that the flame reheating device can heat the optical fiber from 1300°C to
1500°C (heated >100°C). At 15m/s, the residence time of a 1mm length of glass is 6.67 x 10-5 s. A
PHOSITA can calculate a heating rate 200°C/6.67 x 10-5 s = 3,000,000 °C/s. Heating rate is a result
effective variable, as the heating rate in turn determines the peak temperature achieved in the
reheating that supports reduction in fictive temperature and attenuation. While Argaw does not
disclose a residence time of the fiber in the flame reheating device, i.e. does not disclose a heating
rate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the heating rate, since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One
would have been motivated to optimize the heating rate for the purpose to reduce fictive
temperature (reduce Rayleigh scattering) and attenuation, as noted by Argaw ([0003], [0004],
[0005], Fig. 5). ) A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable
ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d
618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Further, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of
cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the
art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
Application 2007022786A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster786”), in further view of U.S. Patent
Application 20020178762A1 by Foster et. al. (herein “Foster762”) and in further view of U.S. Patent
5637130 by Nagayama et. al. (herein “Nagayama”) and in further view of PGPUB 20010006262A1 by
Dubois et. al. (herein “Dubois”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,709,970 by Hemker et. al (herein
“Hemker”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,637,130 by and in further view of U.S. PGPUB
20190359517A by Argaw et. al (herein “Argaw”).
Regarding Claim 17, Foster786 teaches:
An optical fiber forming apparatus comprising: a draw furnace. See [0035], Lines 1-4 which discloses a draw furnace in an optical fiber forming apparatus; Fig. 2, element 100/120.
a muffle with an inner surface; [0037], Lines 4-5, " An annular sleeve-like susceptor 126 (which may be, for example, formed of graphite) extends through the draw furnace 120 and defines a passage 130 therein; Fig. 2, element 126 [0038] lines 5-10. “the draw furnace 120, as described and illustrated, is merely exemplary of suitable draw furnaces and it will be appreciated that those skilled in the art that draw furnaces of other designs and constructions, for example, using other types of heating mechanisms, susceptors and insulation, etc. may be employed.” The Examiner understands this to mean susceptors with induction heating, or muffles with electric heating, and variations thereof, are included in the art.
an axial opening below the muffle; Fig. 2, element 124, [0037] Lines 4-7, "An axial opening 124 is defined in the flange 123 through which the fiber 110 passes and through which the previously dropped glass gob may pass.". The axial opening 124 is at the bottom of the draw furnace, below all other physical aspects of the draw furnace. .
the inner surface of the muffle part of a defining a passageway extending through the axial opening; Fig. 2, elements 126, 130; [0037], Lines 5-10, “An annular sleeve-like susceptor 126 (which may be, for example, formed of graphite) extends through the draw furnace 120 and defines a passage 130 therein. The passage 130 includes an upper section (part of the passageway) adapted to receive and hold the optical fiber preform 102 and a lower section through which the drawn fiber 110 passes as glass is melted and drawn off from the preform 102. The gob, formed at the initiation of drawing also passes through this section. The lower section of the passage 130 communicates with the opening 124.” Fig. 2 illustrates the remaining part of the passageway below the muffle extending through the axial opening.
an upper inlet into the passageway; Fig. 2, element 138, [0038]. "A suitable inert forming gas FG, most preferably helium, is introduced into the passage 130 at about 1 atmosphere of pressure through a suitable flow inlet 138".
Foster786 fails to teach,
a tube that extends into the passageway of the draw furnace above the axial opening with the tube having an outer surface and the inner surface of the muffle surrounding the outer surface of the tube,
with a space separating the outer surface of the tube from the inner surface of the muffle,
an inner surface that defines a second passageway extending through the tube, an inlet into the second passageway of the tube, and an outlet of the second passageway of the tube
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Foster762 teaches a tube 160 that extends into the passageway of the draw furnace 120 above the axial opening 124 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tube of Foster762 in the device of Foster786 to protect the fiber from turbulent flow and reduce fiber diameter variation, as noted by Foster762 ([0027]).
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Nagayama teaches a fully separated tub and an inner surface that defines a second passageway extending through the tube, an inlet into the second passageway of the tube, and an outlet of the second passageway of the tube; Fig. 3, elements 24/S1/S2/22a, Page 11, Col 6 Lines 40-53. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to make the tube separate from the muffle so as “to not increase the gas flow rate and gas pressure in the vicinity of the lower molten portion of the preform due to gas flowing into the inner furnace core tube 24. For this reason, any deflection of the drawn optical fiber and any variation in the diameter thereof can be inhibited” as noted by Nagayama (Page 11-12, Col 6-7 lines 1-5, 64-67).
Foster786 further teaches that additional conventional steps may be included, such as a further fiber cooling apparatus [0035] but does not teach,
a cooling device at the outlet out of the second passageway of the tube, the cooling device comprising:
from 2 to 6 bodies,
for pairing of adjacent bodies, a distance separates the bottom surface of one of the adjacent bodies from the top surface of the other of the adjacent bodies.
the opening is configured to pass an optical fiber through the body,
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Dubois teaches a cooling device that consists of a fast-cooling device and a slow cooling device, placed one above the other, spaced apart by a distance that accommodates a fiber; Fig. 2, elements 7/12/10/11/h; Fig. 2, [0041]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the cooling device of Dubois in the apparatus of Foster786 to significantly reduce Rayleigh scattering and preserve the attenuation of the fiber while improving the mechanical strength of the fiber, as noted by Dubois ([0011], [0017]).
In further regard to the cooling device, Dubois fails to teach,
each of the bodies comprising a hollow cylindrical portion having a top surface that is planar and an opposing bottom surface that is planar,
a height between the top surface and the bottom surface,
an outer diameter parallel to the top surface that is greater than the height,
an opening within the body extending from the top surface through the body to the bottom surface,
the opening having a diameter within a range of from 2 mm to 100 mm,
wherein,
and one or more gas outlets within the body;
configured to direct a gas to contact the optical fiber as the optical fiber passes through the opening
In an analogous endeavor of cooling low denier thermoplastic resin filaments, Hemker teaches a device that comprises a)-g) above, in element 14 described as a quench assembly, of Fig. 3 (see annotated Fig. 3 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
592
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The quenching assembly is described (Col 3 lines 34-47), which includes an annular housing 16, annular porous structure 18, wide enclosed space 20, exterior porous structure wall 22, cooling gas ports 24 and 26. Element 12 is the spinneret assembly (Col 3 lines 58-59). Element 19 is a fiber. The size of the quenching is ascertained by the following:
the solid porous structure is from about ¼”to about 1” high (Col 5 line 48, Col 6 line 1 for Claim 2)
the solid porous structure has “ a thickness (or width ) from about ¼ to ½ inch” (Col 3 lines 55-57)
a spinneret having a plurality of substantially evenly spaced holes the outer course of which has a diameter ranging from about 3 to about 7 (Col 6 lines 13-16 for Claim 4).
In reference to Fig. 3, if the spinneret is 3” in diameter and quench assembly must accommodate, then,
the inner diameter of the quench assembly must be near 3” (75mm), which reads on the instant claim.
Hemker further cites, “…a diffused cooling gas from multidirectional orifices…inwardly against the freshly extruded molten filaments” (Col 2 lines 65-72).
Also, the device of Hemker is located below the spinneret ( which is below the molten thermoplastic material which is not shown) which is analogous to the Dubois cooling device location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling devices of Dubois with the structure of Hemker to add to the apparatus of Foster786, one being motivated to do so to achieve provide good quality fibers at an increased production rate as well as stabilize and quench the filaments without damaging or degrading the filament structure, as noted by Hemker (Col 2 lines 6-9, Col 4 lines 3-4). As a note, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
While the combination discloses a drawing apparatus (Foster786) and a cooling device (12) of two
bodies (a fast cooling and a slow cooling body, elements 10 and 11, respectively) that is located after the
bottom of the draw and before the coating device (element 5) (Fig. 2 of Dubois), the combination does
not disclose,
a flame reheating device downstream from the cooling device;
and a slow cooling device downstream of the flame reheating device;
In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Argaw discloses first a slow cooling device at the
bottom of the draw (similar to Dubois) , followed by a flame reheating device (element 110),
followed by a treatment device 120 that is operable to cool the optical fiber (Fig.2,[0027])
before coating unit 50. Hence, both the flame reheating device and the treatment device to cool the
optical fiber are, in sequence, downstream of the draw furnace. It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the
flame reheating device and cooling device as arranged by Argaw in the apparatus of the
combination as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of reheating the fiber and then
cooling the fiber on the draw apparatus to reduce fictive temperature (reduce Rayleigh scattering)
and attenuation, as well as eliminating the need for an increase in the height of the draw tower to
do so, as noted by Argaw ([0003], [0004], [0005], [0089] Fig. 5).
While the combination (Foster786) discloses wherein the optical fiber exits the outlet of a tube at a
rate “greater than or equal to 15m/s” [0014], which establishes the draw rate for the draw
apparatus, the combination does not disclose,
the flame reheating device is configured to heat the optical fiber by at least 100 degrees Celsius at a heating rate greater than 10,000 degrees Celsius/second;
Argaw further discloses that the flame reheating device can heat the optical fiber from 1300°C to
1500°C (heated >100°C). At 15m/s, a residence time of a 1mm length of glass is 6.67 x 10-5 s. A
PHOSITA can calculate a heating rate 200°C/6.67 x 10-5 s = 3,000,000 °C/s. Heating rate is a result
effective variable, as the heating rate in turn determines the peak temperature achieved in the
reheating that supports reduction in fictive temperature and attenuation. While Argaw does not
disclose a residence time of the fiber in the flame reheating device, i.e. does not disclose a heating
rate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the heating rate, since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One
would have been motivated to optimize the heating rate for the purpose to reduce fictive
temperature (reduce Rayleigh scattering) and attenuation, as noted by Argaw ([0003], [0004],
[0005], Fig. 5). ) A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable
ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d
618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Further, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of
cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the
art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 18, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois, Hemker and Argaw as combined in the rejection of claim 17 above teach all of the limitations of claim 17.
Nagayama further teaches inert gas flows through an upper inlet and forms two separate gas streams, where the gas in each stream exits the draw furnace through different passageways. Fig. 3.elements 24/ S1/S2/22a. Page 11, Col 6 Lines 20-26/40-53. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have been motivated to make two separate gas streams (through the tube and in the space between the tube and the muffle) so as to gradually cool the fiber and inhibit variation in fiber diameter as noted by Nagayama (Page 12, Col 7 lines 6-13).
Regarding Claim 19 , which is dependent on Claim 18, Foster786, Foster762, Nagayama, Dubois, Hemker and Argaw as combined in the rejection of claim 17 above teach all of the limitations of claim 17.
Foster786 teaches wherein the inert gas comprises one or more of argon, nitrogen or helium; Fig. 8, [0078], lines 1-5; “As shown in Figure 8, during the steps of drawing 403 and heat treating 405, an atmosphere preferably containing an inert gas is provided. The inert gas may be helium, nitrogen, argon, or a mixture thereof”. Although Foster786 teaches the instant claim, the choice of inert gas is an intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Lemond (U.S. Patent 5,178,814) discloses a filament quenching device that provide a quenching gas from nozzles radially inward at predetermined angle.
Glessen et. al. (U.S. Patent 4,673,427) discloses a fiber draw apparatus with in internal pipe separated from the interior of the furnace where the fiber exits internal pipe below the furnace.
Kawaguchi et. al. (USPGPUB 20201089958A1) disclose a fiber draw apparatus with cooling devices below the exit opening of the draw furnace.
Koaizowa et. al. (JP4302367B2) discloses a fiber draw apparatus with an internal pipe separated from the interior of the furnace where the fiber exits internal pipe below the furnace, as well as a cooling device below the exit opening of the draw furnace.
Sun et. al. (CN105236732A) discloses a system for an optical fiber draw system, for an optical fiber cooling system before fiber coating, where the cooling system consists of multiple hollow center section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 4164
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights