Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 01/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 01/19/2026, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see page 12, filed 01/19/2026, with respect to Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1:
Nagayama - Applicant argues that,
Nagayama’s cited passage discusses FIG. 1 funnel structure, not a tube affixed to the muffle; and
the Examiner failed to Make Prima Facie Showing that claim 1 would have obvious, because the
Office's cited motivation from NAGAYAMA-to avoid increased gas flow rate and pressure near
the molten portion-addresses a problem caused by a funnel structure, not a tube affixed to the
muffle as in FOSTER '762, citing MPEP § 2142.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
Foster ‘762, as the Applicant cites, has a tube affixed to the muffle inside wall. Nagayama’s
cited passage in the Office Action was; “Col 6-7, lines 1-5, 64-67” meaning Col 6 lines 64-67 and
Col 7 lines 1-5. Yet, as the Applicant in Remarks cited Col 6 1-64, Col 7-5, which would
encompass the above intended citation, the
argument that the cited passage discusses FIG. 1 funnel structure is in error. Col 6 discusses
FIG.3, which is mentioned in Col 5 as to have all the same features/functions/reference
numerals that are identical to FIG. 1. (Col 5 lines 53-57). Then, after this citation, Nagayama
discusses aspects of FIG. 3 which continues into Col 6 and the beginning of Col 7, where the
structure reads on the claim and the citation supports the motivation, in particular “Moreover, a
portion of the heated inert gas 20 flows into the space S2 outside the inner furnace core tube 24
and, therefore, the gas flow rate and the gas pressure are not increased in the vicinity of the
lower molten portion of the preform due to the gas flowing into the inner furnace core tube 24,
unlike the furnace core tube having a structure as shown in FIG. 1. For this reason, any
deflection of the drawn optical fiber and any variation in the diameter thereof can be inhibited
(Col 6 lines 64-67.Col 7 lines 1-5). The annotated FIG. 3 of Nagayama below shows S2, the space
between the inner muffle and the tube.
PNG
media_image1.png
1184
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hence, the argument is moot.
Dubois - Applicant argues that,
Dubois would be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose ( MPEP § 2143.01, part V
(citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)), with the proposed
modification of Dubois by Hemker due to the fact that,
Dubois uses a slow cooling device that is 5m long (i.e. a height of 5m) and a fast cooling
device that is 20cm long (i.e. height) that comprise the Dubois cooling device.
Hemker has a device where the height is from about ¼”to about 1” high and the inner diameter of the quench assembly near 3” (75mm). The Examiner notes that the diameter of the Hemker device is about 7” (~ 175mm).
And that the substitution of the Hemker disc-like bodies for the larger Dubois slow/fast
cool devices of the Dubois cooling device would hinder the cooling profiles of the fiber.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
The Examiner understands that ( MPEP § 2143.01, part V (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) is a case where a reference device was read on a claim where the reference device
was turned upside down (180°C) which would have rendered the claimed device unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose. Substituting the “smaller” cooling discs of Hemker for the longer fast
cool/slow cool devices that make up the cooling device of Dubois does not render the cooling
discs unsatisfactory for their intended use. The “smaller” disc of Hemker are capable of cooling
fiber. Moreover, the cooling device of Dubois can be used for cooling polymer fiber [0012]
which is the same purpose of the Hemker cooling disc. Further, in viewing the application in it’s
entirety, one could use 6 of the Hemker discs to cool a fiber. As the application is an apparatus
claim, the Examiner wished to remind the Applicant that 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. Hence, the argument is moot.
Hemker - Applicant argues that,
Hemker is not analogous art because,
Claim 1 recites and optical fiber forming apparatus with a muffle, and a tube extending into a
passageway and a cooling device at the outlet of the tube.
Thermoplastic resin fiber extrusion is a fundamentally different field from optical fiber
drawing where hundreds of fibers are cooled simultaneously.
Hemker does not face the same problem by the inventor. The present application
addresses cooling optical fiber to maintain fiber diameter uniformity and Hemker
addresses non-uniform cross sections of thermoplastic resin filaments and the Hemker
non-uniform cross sections due to fibers touching each other is not present in drawing
a single optical fiber of the application.
Hemker is not analogous art, citing MPEP § 2141.01(a), part I. "A reference is analogous art to
the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent
to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention) as Hemker satisfied neither of the two prongs of MPEP § 2141.01(a), part I.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
a)i) Hemker is not relied upon to teach optical fiber forming apparatus with a
muffle, and a tube extending into a passageway. Hemker is relied upon to teach a
cooling device . Further, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, in that Hemker teaches
the cooling device is below the apparatus used for melt extrusion (similar location to
Dubois cooling device below the fiber draw) and at distance away from the filament
stream (similar to the cooling device of Dubois in relation to the fiber). Continuing, 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. Hence, the argument is moot.
a)ii) While the Examiner acknowledges that manufacturing hundreds of thermoresin fibers
simultaneously is different than drawing a single fiber, the difference in number of fibers drawn
at a time does not mitigate the fact, in the broadest sense, that both the processes of Dubois
and the process of Hemker have a forming apparatus that is used to create fiber and the fiber is
cooled. While stating the above, The Examiner wishes to remind the Applicant that 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. Hence, the argument is moot.
a)iii) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hemker does face the same problem as in drawing optical
fiber: to obtain a uniform cross-section, or diameter, of the fiber. While the non-uniform
diameter problem is presented differently in Dubois (variable single fiber diameter dimension)
vs. Hemker (two thermoresin fibers touching and fusing together), the fact remains that in the
broadest sense, the problems are the same while presented differently . While stating the
above, The Examiner wishes to remind the Applicant that 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. Hence, the argument is moot.
b) a)i-a(iii argument above are the same arguments to satisfy MPEP § 2141.01(a), part I, (2) the
reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the
same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). As noted above, Dubois cites the use of a
cooling device for polymer fibers as well [0012] and Hemker draws thermoresin fibers, which
are in the same family of materials; satisfying citing MPEP § 2141.01(a), part I. "A reference is
analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as
the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). Hence, the argument is moot.
No Reasonable Expectation of Success in applying the teachings of Hemker to Foster’ ‘786, Foster ‘762
and Nagayama - Applicant argues that,
The Office does not explain why a PHOSITA would have reasonable expectation of success and
that the cited case law by the Examiner (ex parte Masham) is a strawman; the issue is whether a
PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success modifying the optical fiber drawing
apparatus of Foster ‘786.
case law, "where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed
invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable
expectation of success." MPEP § 2143.02, part I.
since the device of Hemker is designed to cool hundreds of thermoplastics filaments while the
claimed device cools a single optical fiber, a PHOSITA would not have a reasonable expectation
of success using the Hemker device.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
a), b), c) the Applicant’s argument for “reasonable expectation of success” is based on intended use of a
structure. While intended use of a structure, as long the structure meets the requirements of the claim
has no bearing in patentability the structure, Dubois teaches the use of a cooling device for both optical
fiber and polymer material where one of the purposes to preserve mechanical strength of the fiber.
Hemker teaches a cooling device for thermoresin material as a fiber where one of the purposes is to
quench the filaments without damaging or degrading the filament structure (Col 4 lines 3-4), which in a
broad sense would encompass mechanical strength of the fiber. A nexus is present.
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). Further, 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.
Hence, Applicant’s argument is moot. The rejection of Claim 1 is maintained. Hence, the rejections of dependent claims 2-16 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant argues similarly as in Claim 1 above. In response to the Applicant’s
argument the Examiner replies similarly as to Claim 1. Hence, Applicant’s argument is moot. The rejection of Claim 17 is maintained. Hence, the rejections of dependent claims 18-20 is maintained.
Note: the Applicant has,
amended claims 1 and 17 with a read of “ the inner surface of the muffle defining part of a passageway extending through the axial opening”. The Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments for Claim 1 and Claim 17 illustrate that Nagayama reads on the claim amendments. Further, Foster ‘786 would also read on the claim amendments.
amended Claim 11 with a read of “ about 10mm to about 50mm”, in regard to the diameter of the opening of the cooling device, the Examiner could consider this a mere change of size or an optimization.
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;
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_image2.png
592
736
media_image2.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 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.
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_image3.png
779
603
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.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 500m in order to align with the number of fibers/filaments to be cooled, whether the number of fibers is 1 or 1000 (in the case of Hemker, the size of the spinneret), 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).
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 fails to teach wherein,
a volumetric flow rate of gas from each nozzle is about 5 standard liters per minute to about 100 standard liters per minute.
Hemker further discloses in, an example, where cooling gas flow for the porous structure (1/2” thick) for a cooling ring for spinneret diameter of 4” is 0.5 cubic feet/min/in2 (Col 4 line 68, Col 5 line 12-13, 16-18). Calculating SLPM of the cooling gas through the porous structure of an annular cooling ring with an inside diameter of 4” and a thickness of the porous structure of 1/2”,
Area of inner diameter: 2 (PI) r * thickness = 2* (3.14) *2” * ½” = 6.28 in2
Cooling gas flow = 6.28 in2 * 0.5 cubic feet/min/ in2 = 3.14 cubic feet/min
Cooling gas flow = 3.14 cubic feet/min * 1SL/min / .035 cubic feet/min = ~ 89.7 standard liters per minute into the center of the annular ring.
While Hemker does not teach gas flow for each nozzle separately, 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 17-20 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_image2.png
592
736
media_image2.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.
Foster786 does fails teach a flame reheating device downstream from the draw furnace. In the same field of endeavor of draw furnaces, Argaw teaches flame reheating device downstream from the draw furnace; Fig. 2, element 110, [0027], Page 12, Col 2 Lines 1-10, [0048] Page 15, Col 5 Lines 1-6. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to modify Foster 786 with the flame reheating device of Argaw downstream of the draw furnace to reduce fiber fictive temperature, and hence, signal attenuation, as noted by Argaw (Page 11, Col 1, [0003], [0004], [0005], Lines 1-6); as well as eliminating the need for an increase in the height of the draw tower, as note by Argaw (Page 22, Col 12, [0089], Lines 1-17).
Foster786 fails to teach a slow cooling device downstream of the draw furnace. Argaw teaches a slow cooling device downstream from the draw furnace; Fig. 2, element 30, [0036], Page 14, Col 4 Lines 1-4/14-16. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to modify Foster 786 with the slow cooling device of Argaw to reduce fictive temperature and reduce attenuation of the optical fiber noted by Argaw ([0037], Page 14, Col 4 Lines 1-12); as well, eliminating the need for an increase in the height of the draw tower as noted by Argaw (Page 22, Col 12, [0089], Lines 1-17).
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 and 20, 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.” Furthermore, the phrase “The inert gas may be helium, nitrogen, argon, or a mixture thereof” is interpreted to mean it is possible to use only nitrogen, wherein the inert gas comprises no helium. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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