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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration after Final Rejection filed 1/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claims 1, 3-7 remain pending in the application, and Claim 2 has been cancelled previously without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein. Examiner notes that Applicant cites “with claims 1 and 2-6 under consideration”. Examiner believes Applicant meant to cite “with claims 1 and 3-6 under consideration”, as claim 2 has been cancelled. Applicant' s Arguments and Amendments, filed 1/29/2026, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification and Claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 3-6 rejected over the final office action have been considered, but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment to Claim 1 filed on 1/29/2026.
Further, the Examiner would like to express regret for the error labeling the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as the Shimazu and Bogdahn references were cited. The Examiner will rectify in this Office Action and properly review Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 UU.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
JP2004168571A by Shimazu, et. al.(herein “Shimazu”) in view of PGPUB 20070119214A1 by Bogdan et.
al. (herein “Bogdahn”) and in further view of NPL “A Computational Approach to Edge Detection” by
Canny (herein “Canny”) and in further view of NPL “A New Efficient Ellipse Detection Method” by Xie et.
al. (herein “Xie”) and in further view of NPL “Wafer Pre-Aligner System Based Upon Vision Information
Processing” by Cong et. al. (herein “Cong”).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimazu teaches:
An optical fiber manufacturing method where an optical fiber preform is drawn while being heated in a drawing furnace to form an optical fiber; [0007], [0008] “An optical fiber drawing method and an optical fiber drawing apparatus capable of manufacturing an optical fiber”, “…for heating and softening an optical fiber preform to draw it.”
the method comprising,
acquiring a captured image obtained by simultaneously photographing the optical fiber preform and an opening on an optical fiber preform insertion side of the drawing furnace before inserting the optical fiber preform into an opening formed in the upper portion of the drawing furnace and before drawing the optical fiber preform; Fig. 4 Page 2 line 50-52, 54-55, “ First, as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 front view of an optical fiber drawing device showing a state where a correction image is obtained by observing the optical fiber preform from directly below the heating furnace with an observation device before drawing…The center and the center of the optical fiber preform 10 are made to coincide with each other and are arranged without being eccentric.
Shimazu fails to teach wherein,
acquiring a captured image obtained by simultaneously photographing the optical fiber preform and an opening on an optical fiber preform insertion side of the drawing furnace before inserting the optical fiber preform into an opening formed in the upper portion of the drawing furnace and before drawing the optical fiber preform, and
and adjusting a position of the optical fiber preform so that the center of the optical fiber preform and the center of the opening of the draw furnace match based upon the captured image;
In the same field of endeavor of improving positional accuracy of optical fiber preforms, Bogdahn
teaches the use of an optical device for determining x-y position of a glass cylinder on the insertion
side of the draw furnace with the sensing position E1 (Fig. 2,[0021]). The opening is measured
using positioning elements 5a and 5b which are in a fixed locations in reference to
the heating tube, and are measured in distance by CCD cameras 6 and 7 ([0077], [0079]). 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 measure the preform and opening positions on the insertion side by the
method of Bogdahn in the method of Shimazu, one being motivated to determine the one radial
x-y position for each heating tube where the glass cylinder is arranged such that the glass cylinder is
subjected to a uniform and axially symmetric heating, as noted by Bogdahn ([0015]).
While the method Bogdahn has a somewhat different physical set-up than Shimazu, the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into
the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
While Bogdahn does not teach capturing simultaneously the images before inserting the optical fiber preform into an opening formed in the upper portion of the drawing furnace, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125. One would have been motivated to do so for the common reason of industrial efficiency.
Further, regarding capturing the images before inserting the preform into and upper portion of the drawing furnace adjusting a position of the optical fiber preform so that the center of the optical fiber preform and the center of the opening of the draw furnace match based upon the captured image,
Bogdahn teaches a hollow glass cylinder is first adjusted such that “ it’s longitudinal axis 16 extends in the first sensing plane E1 (outside the heating tube, see Fig. 2) in the central axis 2 of the heating tube 1. To this end the hollow cylinder 4 is adjusted by means of a displacement device (not shown in the figures) which can be positioned by the computer. The verticals 5a and 5b serve as an adjusting device. This first orientation of the hollow cylinder 4 is performed by hand or in a computer-controlled manner. On the basis of a vision edge, the position of the hollow cylinder 4 of quartz glass within the heating tube 1 is sensed by means of the CCD cameras 6 and 7 and the corresponding xy-coordinates are stored in computer 8” ([0085]). Then, “the hollow cylinder 4 of quartz glass that is positioned in the central axis 2 of the heating tube 1 is subsequently lowered at a given advance rate into the heating tube 1 and is heated therein to a temperature above 2100.degree” ([0086]), illustrating images of the glass cylinder and the opening on the preform insertion side (via the verticals 5a and 5b) were captured before the glass cylinder was in the heating tube. 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 was made to capture images of the preform and the opening on the insertion side of the draw furnace using the method of Bogdahn in the method of Shimazu, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of reproducible installation of glass cylinders at a corrected x-y position in the first sensing plane (E1) to impact the corresponding circular or annular dimension of drawn off glass strands, as noted by Bogdahn ([0025]- [0028]).
Shimazu fails to teach wherein,
the captured image includes a first captured image and a second captured image, wherein in acquiring the captured image, the optical fiber preform and the opening formed in the upper portion of the draw furnace are photographed by a first camera to obtain the first captured image, and the optical fiber preform and the opening formed in the upper portion of the draw furnace are photographed by a second camera, positioned differently from the first camera, to obtain the second captured image, and wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged such that, in the horizontal direction, each is directed obliquely inward and downward relative to a central axis of the optical fiber preform.
Bogdahn further teaches a vertical drawing method for producing cylindrical glass bodies, including
optical fiber preforms, characterized by using two CCD cameras as sensing devices for accurately
detecting the radial X-Y position of the glass cylinder, where the CCD cameras reside at two different
locations; Fig. 2, element 6/7, [0038], [0079], “ An optical image of the arrangement of glass
cylinder and heating tube…is generated by means of a suitable recording apparatus and is displayed on a
display medium, such as a monitor, a display device or as a print”, “At the level of a first sensing plane
E1 (above the upper end of the heating tube 1), two CCD cameras 6 and 7 are arranged, which in
viewing directions perpendicular to each other are each directed onto the central axis 2 and onto the
opposite verticals 5a, and 5b, respectively. The verticals 5a and 5b form a fixed point of reference for the
heating tube 1, so that the CCD cameras 6, 7 are positioned in a defined way on account of their
orientation on the verticals 5a and 5b relative to the heating tube 1. The CCD cameras 6 and 7 are each
connected to a computer 8.” By using verticals 5a and 5b, the image of the opening is indirectly
captured. As well, the CCD cameras 6 and 7 face inward towards the preform (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
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 use the image capturing arrangement of Bogdan in the method of Shimazu
as the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it
does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007).
While Bogdahn does not teach wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged such that, in the horizontal direction, each is directed obliquely downward relative to a central axis of the optical fiber preform, 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 modify the angle of the two CCD cameras, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to modify the angle of the two CCD cameras for the purpose of sensing the radial x-y position of the glass cylinder such that what is just essential is obtained, which is that the coordinates of the corresponding x-y position are determined in a definite and quantitative way, as noted by Bogdahn ([0021]). It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
While Bogdahn cites the use of a “vision edge” to support the position of the hollow cylinder of quartz glass within the heating tube when the edges are sensed by means of the CCD cameras 6 and 7, Shimazu and Bogdahn fail to teach,
detecting outline edge coordinates of the optical fiber preform and edge coordinates of the opening,
calculating a central axis of the optical fiber preform and a center point of an ellipse of the opening,
detecting a center point of the optical fiber preform and a center point of the opening,
in regard to centering the optical fiber preform and the center of the opening in the upper portion of the draw furnace.
a) In a similar endeavor of machine vision-based geometric feature detection and alignment systems, Canny teaches computational edge detection in digital images (entire reference), including in two or more dimensions (Page 690, VII. Two or More Dimensions), with an example being edge detection as input to isolate geometric solid and cites a variety of applications for edge detection (Page 679, Introduction, lines 1-16). Canny teaches the claimed invention except for measuring edges on an optical fiber preform and the opening. 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 add the edge detection system concept of Canny (edge detection systems are usually hardware + software) to the method of measuring the location of the optical fiber preform and opening of Bogdahn, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of simplifying the analysis of images by drastically reducing the amount of data to be processed while preserving useful structural information about object boundaries, as noted by Canny (Page 679, I. Introduction, lines 3-7). Further, while the method of Canny may have a somewhat different physical set-up than Bogdahn, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
b) In a similar endeavor of machine vision-based geometric feature detection and alignment systems, Xie teaches detecting and parameterization of ellipses from edge coordinate data in images (entire reference). Further, ellipse detection steps are outlined where the input image is an edge image (Page 2, 4. Ellipse Detection Steps, 1-16, lines 2-3). As well, ellipse geometry, including the center, can be calculated (Page 2, left side column which includes ellipse center point, x0,y0).
Xie teaches the claimed invention except for i) calculating a central axis and ii) calculating a central axis of an optical fiber preform and iii) calculating a center point of an ellipse of the opening. 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 machine vision method of Xie to i) calculate a central axis, as the method Xie can also calculate a central axis (i.e. of a circular opening) as in this case the value d in the equations of Xie is independent of all other parameters (d would equal a constant radius) in the method of Bogdahn. One would be motivated to do so for the general purpose of process efficiency (use the same computational algorithm for both shapes). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Further, 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 machine vision method of Xie to ii) calculate a central axis of an optical fiber preform and iii) calculate a center point of an ellipse of the opening, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing the required computational storage, as noted by Xie (Page 1, 1. Introduction, lines 26-27). Further, the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
c) In a similar endeavor of machine vision-based geometric feature detection and alignment systems, Cong teaches an optical pre-alignment of a wafer before aligning the wafer to the wafer stage (Page 1245, Para. 1, Para. 4, references Canny, 1986). An optical tester detects the wafer position whereby a controller then corrects the geometric center. The wafer alignment system is based on an algorithm of edge visual detection and vision information processing (Page 1245 Para. 7). The mechanical system includes alignment in x-y directions (1246, Para.3) and uses a CCD image sensors to collect the data. The center of the wafer is obtained (Page 1247, Para. 3) and then alignment to the wafer stage occurs, i.e. .“through the vision information processing and finally complete the work of alignment” (Page 1250 Para. 3). In order for alignment to take place, it is inherent that the location of the wafer stage and the center point of the wafer stage be known for alignment to occur. To be clear, the wafer/wafer stage is analogous to the optical fiber preform/opening in the instant claim. Cong teaches the claimed invention except for use for alignment between an optical fiber preform and the opening. 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 incorporate the method of Cong into the method of Bogdahn, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of alignment precision and reduced alignment time, as noted by Cong (Page 1250, Para. 3 lines 13-18).
Claims 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Shimazu, Bogdahn,
Canny, Xie, and Cong as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of JP2009007201A by
Shirosawa et. al (herein “Shirosawa”) and in further view of WO2020162409A1 by Sakamoto et. al
(herein “Sakamoto”).
Regarding Claim 3, Shimazu, Bogdahn, Canny, Xie, and Cong in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all
of the limitations of claim 1.
Shimazu fails to teach in acquiring the captured image, the optical fiber preform is irradiated
with a first light ray emitted from a first illumination device, the optical fiber preform is irradiated with a
second light ray emitted from a second illumination device and having a wavelength different from that
of the first light ray, a first captured image is acquired by photographing the optical fiber preform and
the opening formed in the upper portion of the draw furnace with a first camera having a first filter
capable of transmitting only the first light ray, and a second captured image is acquired by
photographing the optical fiber preform and the opening formed in the upper portion of the draw
furnace with a second camera having a second filter capable of transmitting only the second light ray.
In the same field of endeavor of drawing of optical fiber preforms, Shirosawa teaches the use of an
illumination device and a CCD camera as a detection device to inspect/assess the diameter of the hole
inside a holey fiber (Fig. 1 elements 5, 6; [0028], but fails to teach the use of illumination devices or
cameras in the methods of the instant claim. In the analogous field of endeavor of drawing plastic
optical fiber (herein “POF”), Sakamoto teaches, for measuring the core diameter of a POF, acquiring
image data on two sides of a POF that are 90 ° apart from each other by two imaging units: an imaging
unit A that includes a first light irradiation mechanism 2 and a first imaging mechanism 3, and an
imaging unit B that includes a second light irradiation mechanism 2 and a second imaging mechanism 3;
Page 6, lines 40-42. Further, Sakamoto teaches when the two imaging units are arranged on the same
plane, different wavelengths of each irradiation unit are required, as well as bandpass filters; Page 6,
lines 56-58. “ …by making the wavelengths of light emitted from the light irradiation mechanism of each
imaging unit different from each other and installing a bandpass filter that can transmit only a specific
wavelength band in front of each imaging mechanism. Shirosawa and Sakamoto discloses the claimed
invention except for use on optical fiber preforms . 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 deploy the method of
the combination to that of Shimazu, to maintain accurate calculation and detection, as noted by
Sakamoto (Page 6 lines 54-56).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Shimazu, Bogdahn, Canny, Xie, Cong, Shirosawa, and
Sakamoto in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 3.
Shimazu fails to teach a wavelength of the first light ray is red and a wavelength of the second light ray is blue. Sakamoto teaches the use of blue and red wavelengths of light for first and second light irradiation mechanisms; Page 5, lines 34-39. “ As the first and second light irradiation mechanisms 2 and 2' that irradiate the POF 1 with light, for example, various light sources such as a light emitting diode (LED), a laser, and a halogen lamp can be used. Among them, it is preferable to use light having a single wavelength as a light source…As the single wavelength light, for example, visible light such as blue, green, and red can be used…”. The Examiner interprets Sakamoto to mean that red or blue light could be used for either first and/or second light irradiation mechanisms. 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 use the light source concept of different wavelengths for separate irradiation devices as noted by Sakamoto, in the method of Shimazu for optical fiber preforms, by using a wavelength that is less affected by the wavelength dispersion of the material from the viewpoint of preventing deterioration of image and detection accuracy due to refractive index wavelength dispersion, as noted by Sakamoto (Page 5 lines 37-38).
Claims 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu, Bogdahn,
Canny, Xie, and Cong as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of WO2020162409A1 by Sakamoto et.
al. (herein “Sakamoto”).
Regarding Claim 5, Shimazu, Bogdahn, Canny, Xie, and Cong in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all
of the limitations of claim 1.
Shimazu fails to teach capturing images by opening shutters with two CCD cameras at different timing. Sakamoto further teaches two imaging mechanisms that have shutters and that the shutter speed can be changed (increased); Page 6 lines 27-32. 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 determine shutter timing for the CCD cameras to reduce the influence of shake of the subject, as noted by Sakamoto. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimazu, Bogdahn, Canny, Xie, and Cong in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all
of the limitations of claim 1.
Although the combination of Shimazu, Bogdahn, Canny, Xie, Cong and Sakamoto fails to teach wherein in acquiring the captured image, the optical fiber preform is irradiated with a reflected light ray reflected by a screen located on a back surface of the optical fiber preform, the technique of backlighting a subject using reflected light from a surface behind the subject is a well-known optical technique. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741