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 .
Claim Interpretation
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”.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the calculated standard deviation is determined to be equal to or greater than 0.3 µm is determined to be during the manufacturing of the optical fiber” has a grammatical error. The phrase should be “wherein the calculated standard deviation is determined to be equal to or greater than 0.3 µm . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 11, and 13 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, due to the cancellation of claims 1, 11, and 13 in the amendment filed Apr. 24, 2026, claims 1, 11, and 13, there are no current rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 Apr. 24, 2026 to clarify claim 10. However, there are still 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with claim 10, 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 the second standard deviation is set as the first standard deviation after the resin coating unit is tilted based on the calculated standard deviation being determined to be equal to or greater than 0.3 µm, and in the tilting, in a case where a difference between the first standard deviation and the second standard deviation after the resin coated unit is tilted is larger than a difference between the first standard deviation and the second standard deviation before the resin coating unit is tilted, the resin coating unit is tilted in a direction different from a direction of the resin coating unit being titled in the first direction. It is unclear to the Examiner, what defines a difference between the first standard deviation and the second standard deviation after the resin coating unit is tilted, since the second standard deviation is set as the first standard deviation after the resin coating unit is tilted. Please clarify claim 10.
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 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 indicates claim 10 was amended to address the Examiners 112(b) rejection of claim 10. As stated above, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s attempt to clarify claim 10, but there are still 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with the claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights