DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Nov. 25, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, lines 1-4 are interpreted by the Examiner as the preamble of the claim, and active steps are recited in lines 5-15. In claim 1, a controller is recited in the preamble, but the controller is not referenced in the active steps of the claim, and is therefore not interpreted as required in claim 1. For the “when” statement in lines 14-15 of claim 1, it is interpreted the determining step only occurs when the calculated standard deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3 microns.
In claim 5, lines 1-4 are interpreted by the Examiner as the preamble of the claim, and active steps are recited in lines 5-14. The Examiner notes more weight is given to sections of the preamble that are recited in the active steps of the claim, the term “optical fiber” and “resin coating unit” in the preamble are referenced in the active steps of the claim. For the “when” statement in line 14 of claim 5, it is interpreted the tilting step only occurs when the calculated standard deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3 microns.
In claim 8, in lines 4-8, Applicant claims “after the resin coating unit is tilted. . . measuring the outer diameter at given time intervals. . .”, the Examiner interprets that the “when” condition in lines 9-10 of claim 5 were satisfied and the tilting step from claim 5 is required in claim 8, since line 3 of claim 8, recites “after the resin coating unit is tilted”.
In claim 10, lines 7-10, Applicant recites “wherein the second standard deviation is set as the first standard deviation calculated after the resin coating unit is tilted when . . .”, and in lines 10-13, claims “in the tilting, in a case . . .”, it has been interpreted by the Examiner in claim 5, tilting is not required unless the standard deviation threshold has been met, and it has been interpreted by the Examiner this “when” condition applies to lines 7-13 of claim 10. Therefore, the “wherein” statement in lines 7-13 are only applied when the calculated standard deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3 microns.
In claim 11, the Examiner notes “the controller” is positively recited in the determination step in line 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The amendment to the claims is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of claims 5, 8, 10, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
However, there are still 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections detailed below.
Claims 1, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 recite(s) a well-known step of manufacturing an optical fiber by curing a coating around a glass fiber with a resin coating unit along with steps of acquiring measurement values, calculating standard deviation, and determining a state of eccentricity exceeds an allowable range under a “when” statement, and in claims 11 and 13 claims details of the measurements and/or calculations (i.e. number of measurement values, measurement time intervals, and measurement time). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation of well-known steps of manufacturing of an optical fiber along with the steps of acquiring, calculating, determining a state of eccentricity, and details of the measurements does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic steps of manufacturing an optical fiber by curing a coating around a glass fiber (Fig. 1, [0017]-[0021], and [0042]) with a resin coating unit (“primary resin coating application device 17a, die 18, and primary coating resin curing furnace 22”) is known in the prior art, as evidenced by Kobayashi et al. (JP H0952736 A), and therefore, does not provide significantly more than the steps of acquiring, calculating, and determining along with details of the measurements, because the steps of acquiring measurement values, calculating, and determining can be performed by the human mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment filed Nov. 25, 2025 to clarify the claims. However, there are still 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with the claims discussed below.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a previous tilt”, and there is no explicit recitation of a previous tilt in claim 5. It is unclear to the Examiner if “a previous tilt” is referencing the tilting that occurs when the calculated standard deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3 microns or some other previous tilt. Please clarify “a previous tilt”.
Additionally, claim 10, lines 7-10, recites “wherein the second standard deviation is set as the first standard deviation calculated after the resin coating unit is tilted when . . .”, and in lines 10-13, claims “in the tilting, in a case . . .”, it has been interpreted by the Examiner in claim 5, tilting is not required unless the standard deviation threshold in the “when” statement has been met, and it is unclear to the Examiner if tilting was performed and whether, tilting is required in the step of calculating the stand deviation of the acquired measurement values, since the wherein statement indicates the second standard deviation is set as the first standard deviation “after the resin coating unit is tilted”. Additionally, in claim 10, lines 7-13, if the “when” condition has been met (See claim interpretation above), lines 7-13 lack clarity, since in lines 7-9 above, Applicant states the second standard deviation is set as the first standard deviation, and then in lines 10-11 claims a difference between the first standard deviation and the second standard deviation after the resin coating unit is tilted, since the second standard deviation has been set to the first standard deviation, there will be no difference between the first standard deviation and the second standard deviation, therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner what Applicant is attempting to claim. Additionally, Applicant recites “a previous tilt”, and there is no explicit recitation of a previous tilt in claim 5. Please clarify claim 10.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP H0952736 A – hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of Saliu (“Standard Deviation, Variance, Variability, Fluctuation, Volatility, Variation, Dispersion, Median, Mean Average, CHI Squared”, https://saliu.com/standard_deviation.html, Per wayback machine available Jul. 2021, 13 pages).
For the Kobayashi reference, the Examiner is referencing the sections of the attached EPO Machine Translation and Google Image Translation of Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi (Fig. 1 and [0001]) discloses a method and apparatus for applying a coating to optical fiber. Kobayashi (Fig. 1, [0017]-[0021], and [0042]) discloses coating the glass fiber with a resin coating unit (“primary resin coating application device 17a, die 18, and primary coating resin curing furnace 22”) and curing the resin, which provides for the step of manufacturing.
Kobayashi (Fig. 1 and [0016]-[0021]) also discloses first, second, and third outer diameter measurement devices for measuring the outer diameter of the optical fiber. The first, second, and third outer diameter measurement devices are illustrated at positions along a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber. Kobayashi discloses drawing the optical fiber 12 so that the outer diameter of the optical fiber 12 is measured by the first measuring device 14, applying and curing a primary coating resin followed by measuring the outer diameter of the optical fiber after the primary coating resin has been applied by a second measuring device, and applying and curing a secondary resin coating followed by measuring the diameter of the optical fiber of the optical fiber after the secondary coating resin has been applied by a third outer diameter measuring device.
Additionally, (Fig. 2, Fig. 2 translation, and [0024]-) Kobayashi discloses in the flow chart (Fig. 2) an outer diameter of the fiber and its fluctuation are recorded (corresponding to acquiring measurement values), and reading out the tilt angle around an X-axis and Y-axis where the outer diameter of the optical fiber is maximum and its fluctuation range is minimum. Based on the disclosures by Kobayashi above, Kobayashi provides for manufacturing of an optical fiber by curing a coating around a glass fiber with a resin coating unit, acquiring measurement values for an outer diameter of the optical fiber at positions along a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber during the manufacturing of the optical fiber (i.e. drawing, applying and curing a first primary resin coating, and applying and curing a secondary resin coating), and calculating a fluctuation range of the measurement values where the fluctuation is at a minimum. Kobayashi ([0029]-[0033] and Figs. 3-6) discusses analyzing outer diameter measurement fluctuation data and when the outer diameter is maximized and the fluctuation range is minimized it is possible to apply a coating resin in a uniform thickness and therefore reduce the amount of eccentricity. Based on this disclosure, Kobayashi provides for determining the state of eccentricity that is related to a fluctuation range of the outer diameter measurements. While Kobayashi discloses fluctuations are recorded and providing for determining a state of eccentricity related to a fluctuation range of outer diameter measurement values, Kobayashi fails to disclose calculating a standard deviation and determining a state of eccentricity that is related to a standard deviation value. However, Saliu (pg. 2-4) teaches fluctuation or variance in data can be determined by calculating standard deviation. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Saliu, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of determining the state of eccentricity can be related to a fluctuation range of the outer diameter measurements, the method of Kobayashi could apply calculating a standard deviation value to represent the fluctuation range of the outer diameter measurements. Therefore, the modified method of Kobayashi in view of Saliu would include calculating a standard deviation value of the outer diameter measurement values to represent the fluctuation range and determining a state of the eccentricity related to a standard deviation value.
Kobayashi in view of Saliu fails to explicitly state determining whether the calculated deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3 microns during the manufacturing and determining a state of eccentricity exceeds an allowable range when the calculated standard deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3 microns. However, as stated above, Kobayashi ([0029]-[0033] and Figs. 3-6) discusses analyzing outer diameter measurement fluctuation data with various tilt angles and when the outer diameter is maximized and the fluctuation range is minimized it is possible to apply a coating resin in a uniform thickness and therefore reduce the amount of eccentricity. Since Kobayashi discloses, conditions where the outer diameter is maximized and the fluctuation range is minimized to provide a uniform thickness and reduce the amount of eccentricity by testing various tilt conditions, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that Kobayashi in view of Saliu provides for determining tilt conditions that provide for minimized standard deviation values and the minimized standard deviation values would provide for determining during manufacturing of the optical fiber a state of eccentricity that is acceptable (i.e. exceeds or is within an allowable range) and provides for determining calculations that may include values less than, greater than, or equal to 0.3 microns in the process disclosed by Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Kobayashi (Fig. 2 and [0031]-[0032]) discloses it is possible to perform steps S1 to S17 while drawing the optical fiber at low speed and the repeat steps S2 onwards with the tilted positions of the tilting table 18, 25 as the initial positions, thereby titling the tables 18, 25 at smaller angles in increments and thus more precisely setting the optimum tilt. Kobayashi discloses tilting the die at a predetermined angle, measuring the outer diameter, and then maintaining the tilt angle at which the outer diameter is maximized and the fluctuation is minimized.
Based on the disclosures by Kobayashi above, Kobayashi provides for manufacturing of an optical fiber, acquiring measurement values for an outer diameter of the optical fiber at given time intervals (i.e. low speed drawing, high speed drawing, and/or different tilt angles) during manufacturing at positions along a longitudinal direction and calculating a fluctuation range of the acquired measurement values. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the measurements at different tilt angles provide for wherein the given time intervals include a first period (i.e. one tilt condition or specific draw speed) and a second period (i.e. another tilt condition or another draw speed).
While Kobayashi discloses fluctuations are recorded and providing for tilting the resin coating unit based on a fluctuation range of outer diameter measurement values, Kobayashi fails to disclose calculating a standard deviation of the measurement values and the tilting based on the standard deviation. However, Saliu (pg. 2-4) teaches fluctuation or variance in data can be determined by calculating standard deviation. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Saliu, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of tilting the resin coating unit based on a fluctuation range of the outer diameter measurements, the method of Kobayashi could apply calculating a standard deviation to represent the fluctuation range of the outer diameter measurements. Therefore, the modified method of Kobayashi in view of Saliu would include calculating a standard deviation of the outer diameter measurement values in a first period and a second period to represent the fluctuation range and tilting the resin coating unit based on the standard deviation.
Kobayashi (Fig. 2 and [0031]-[0032]) discloses it is possible to perform steps S1 to S17 while drawing the optical fiber at low speed and the repeat steps S2 onwards with the tilted positions of the tilting table 18, 25 as the initial positions, thereby titling the tables 18, 25 at smaller angles in increments and thus more precisely setting the optimum tilt. Kobayashi discloses tilting the die at a predetermined angle, measuring the outer diameter, and then maintaining the tilt angle at which the outer diameter is maximized and the fluctuation is minimized. Based on the disclosure of Kobayashi, it is clear tilting is a result effective variable that affects the fluctuation, such as the standard deviation, of the outer diameter. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the analysis includes tilting where a standard deviation from the measurement values of one tilt condition (i.e. the second standard deviation) is larger or smaller than a standard deviation of another tilt condition (i.e. the first standard deviation). Therefore, during optimization, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the standard deviation includes a first standard deviation calculated from measurement values in a first period at a first tilt condition and a second standard deviation calculated from the measurement values at a second tilt condition, and in the tilting, the resin unit is tilted where the second standard deviation is larger than the first standard deviation. Additionally, since optimization is occurring, it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, eccentricity increases or decreases are determined based on a comparison between the first standard deviation and the second standard of deviation.
Regarding determining by a controller, Kobayashi ([0029]-[0033] and Figs. 3-6) discusses analyzing outer diameter measurement fluctuation data and when the outer diameter is maximized and the fluctuation range is minimized it is possible to apply a coating resin in a uniform thickness and therefore reduce the amount of eccentricity. Further Saliu (pg. 4) teaches standard deviation calculations performed with software. Therefore, based on the teachings by Saliu and Kobayashi, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, software can be applied in determining the whether standard deviation (i.e. fluctuation) that represents eccentricity is within a minimized standard deviation range. With the application of software, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that a processor is applied, and therefore, in the determining during optimization, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the use of a processor, such as a controller, determines the fluctuation range that produces acceptable or unacceptable eccentricity, which provides for in the determining if there are conditions where the second standard deviation is larger than the first standard deviation, based on a comparison between the first stand deviation and the second standard deviation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 12, and 14 is/are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kobayashi in view of Saliu fails to disclose or fairly suggest the combination of the manufacturing, measuring, determining, and tilting steps, where there is tilting, during the manufacturing of the optical fiber, the resin coating unit in a first direction when the calculated standard deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3 microns, as claimed in claim 5.
The Examiner will consider allowance of claim 10, once the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues are of claim 10 are resolved.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes in the Allowable Subject Matter section above, claims 5, 8, 12, and 14 are allowed.
Applicant's arguments filed Nov. 25 , 2025 over the prior art of Kobayashi in view of Saliu have been fully considered, but the arguments against claim 1 is not persuasive.
The Examiner notes claims 1, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 above. As stated in 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 11, and 13, the Examiner maintains the abstract idea in these claims is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation of well-known steps of manufacturing of an optical fiber along with the steps of acquiring, calculating, determining a state of eccentricity, and details of the measurements does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic steps of manufacturing an optical fiber by curing a coating around a glass fiber (Fig. 1, [0017]-[0021], and [0042]) with a resin coating unit (“primary resin coating application device 17a, die 18, and primary coating resin curing furnace 22”) is known in the prior art, as evidenced by Kobayashi et al. (JP H0952736 A), and therefore, does not provide significantly more than the steps of acquiring, calculating, and determining along with details of the measurements, because the steps of acquiring measurement values, calculating, and determining can be performed by the human mind. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of Claims 5, 8, 10, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101, since the abstract idea has been integrated into an active step of tilting during the manufacturing of the optical fiber.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1 and 5 appear to be combined. As stated above, Claim 5 requires tilting, and therefore, the tilting arguments are not applicable to claim 1.
Applicant argues Kobayashi merely describes selecting the inclination angle of a die where an outer diameter of an optical fiber is maximized and its variation range is minimized and argues the threshold value of 0.3 microns is also not mentioned in Kobayashi and is not self-evident. In response to arguments against claim 1, which would exclude the tilting argument. As stated in the rejection of claim 1, Kobayashi in view of Saliu provides for determining tilt conditions that provide for minimized standard deviation values and the minimized standard deviation values would provide for determining during manufacturing of the optical fiber a state of eccentricity that is acceptable (i.e. exceeds or is within an allowable range) and provides for determining calculations that may include values less than, greater than, or equal to 0.3 microns in the process disclosed by Kobayashi. Accordingly, in the method of optimizing tilt at various drawing conditions, the Examiner maintains Kobayashi in view of Saliu would provide for the step of determining, during the manufacturing of the optical fiber, a state of the eccentricity exceeds an allowable range when the calculated standard deviation is equal to or greater than 0.3. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 over the prior art. The rejection of claim 11 appears to hinge upon the arguments against claim 1, and therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 11 over the prior art.
Claim 13 has no prior art rejection, but is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741