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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP S6016828 A) in view of James (US 2593295 A), Jackson (NPL “Design of Atmospheric Burners”, copy provided in file wrapper), Argaw (US 20190359517 A1) and Ito (JP 2013140291 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura teaches of:
A method of heating an optical fiber (see figure, 4 heats an optical fiber), the method comprising:
Flowing gas into a burner (see H2O2 flowing into burner 4) with an aperture (Pg. 2, (4) is an oxyhydrogen flame type heater made of a ring burner or the like)
igniting the gas to form a flame and heating the fiber with the flame as the fiber passes through the aperture (Pg. 2, (4) is an oxyhydrogen flame type heater made of a ring burner or the like)
Nishimura fails to explicitly teach:
flowing gas from a common gas channel into one or more gas outlets of a burner, the common gas channel encircling an aperture of the burner; and
the one or more gas outlets opening into the aperture such that each gas outlet has a gas outlet bore terminating at a gas outlet nozzle, the gas outlet nozzle being at an inward-facing wall of the burner that defines the aperture, and
a diameter of the gas outlet nozzle being greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 2.0 mm, and
the gas outlet bore being oriented at an angle Θ1 defined between the gas outlet bore and the inward-facing wall of the burner, downstream of the gas outlet bore, that is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 70 degrees.
James teaches of:
flowing gas from a common gas channel (Fig. 1, 26) into one or more gas outlets of a burner (Fig. 1, 26 flows gas out of 27), the common gas channel encircling an aperture of the burner (Fig. 1, see the dotted outline showing 26 in its installed form, 26 completely encircles an aperture) and
the one or more gas outlets opening into the aperture such that each gas outlet has a gas outlet bore terminating at an inward-facing wall of the burner that defines the aperture (Fig. 1, 27 forms a bore with the inward-facing wall of 26 that defines the aperture)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the ring burner of Nishimura with the ring burner of James and connect 23 of James to the gas source of Nishimura
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it has been found that the replacement of the ring burner of Nishimura with the ring burner of James is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results based upon the following rationale:
the prior art of Nishimura contained a system that differed from the claimed device by the substitution of one ring burner for another
the substituted ring burner was known in the art as shown by James and would function the same as the ring burner of Nishimura as it is described
a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted the ring burner of Nishimura with the ring burner of James and have achieved the predictable result of supplying flame to an optical fiber
Jackson teaches of:
the diameter of a gas outlet of a burner can be optimized depending on desired heating value (Pg. 21, I would like to show now input tables that will represent flow rates relative to orifice diameter. We begin with Table 2 below. The gas type, the specific gravity of the gas, the “K” factor and the gas pressure are very critical to the flow rate and must be factored into the overall equation. Table 2 portrays the input in cubic feet per hour relative to sea level. We can calculate the input in Btu/Hr by multiplying the values in Table 2 by the heating value of the gas; i.e. Btu/Ft³ x Ft³/Hr = Btu/Hr. This is a “handy” way to convert flow rate into Btu/Hr. and is used throughout the industry.)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the diameter of the gas outlet of the burner to be greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 1.5 mm
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
the diameter of the gas outlet of the burner has been determined to be a result effective variable based upon the following rationale:
Jackson teaches that the diameter of the gas outlet affects the flow rate of gas out of the burner which affects the heating value of the gas (see citation of Jackson above). Modifying the diameter of the gas outlet of the burner of the combined teachings is disclosed to be a result effective variable in the changing the diameter of the gas outlet changes the heating value of the burner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one4 having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the gas outlet of the combined teachings to be greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 1.5 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Argaw teaches of:
such that a fictive temperature of the fiber is less than 1,500 °C (¶ [0083], “After being treated in and passed out of the treatment device 120, the optical fiber 102 may have a fictive temperature of less than 1550° C., less than or equal to 1500° C., less than or equal to 1450° C., less than or equal to 1400° C., less than or equal to 1300° C., or less than or equal to 1200° C.”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify all the necessary parameters of the combined teachings so that the fictive temperature of the fiber is less than 1,500 °C
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
a lower fictive temperature is desirable for optical fibers as it would result in reduced scattering (Argaw, ¶ [0089], “reduction of the fictive temperature of the optical fiber and resultant reduction in Rayleigh scattering by the optical fiber. The reduction in fictive temperature and Rayleigh scattering may be sufficient to produce an optical fiber having ultra-low signal loss (i.e., ultra-low signal attenuation).”)
Ito teaches of:
adjusting the angle of a the flame being delivered to a filament based upon desired heat transfer to the filament (Figs. 4-5; ¶ [0019], Therefore, when the size of the flame 15 itself is constant, if the burner head 11 is oriented perpendicular to the cable 2 as shown in Figure 2, the flame 15 hits the cable 2 directly in the front, and the thermal power imparted from the gas burner to the cable 2 is maximized. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, when the burner head 11 is directed at an angle to the cable 2, the flame 15 is farther away from the cable 2, and therefore the flame power on the cable 2 is weakened.)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the angle of the outlet bore of James so that it forms an angle between 10 and 70 degrees
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
the angle of the gas outlet bore which in turn is the angle of the flame has been found to be a result effective variable based upon the following rationale:
Ito discloses (see citation above) that the angle of the flame needs to be optimized based upon the speed of the filament to achieve a desired transfer of heat (Ito, ¶ [0020], As mentioned above, the occurrence of unwanted reflections, such as shine, on the cable surface is related to the time and intensity of the flame that the gas flame is applied to the cable surface, and shine occurs in the low linear velocity range. Therefore, when the linear velocity v of the line is slow, it is necessary to reduce the heat applied to the cable surface.). As such the angle of the flame is considered to be a result effective variable in teat changing the angle of the flame would change the heat transfer to the optical fiber which affects the final temperature of the optical fiber after reheating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of the combined teachings by making the angle of the bore which is the angle of the flame relative to the inward facing wall of the burner be between 10 and 70 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the angle Θ1 is greater than or equal to 20 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees (see rejection made above, it would have been obvious based upon the same rationale to make the angle of the combined teachings be 20 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees)
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 2, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the angle Θ1 is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 50 degrees (see rejection made above, it would have been obvious based upon the same rationale to make the angle of the combined teachings be equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 50 degrees)
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 5, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein a diameter of the one or more gas outlets is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 1.5 mm (see rejection made in claim 1 above regarding Jackson, it would have been obvious based on the same rationale to make the diameter of the gas outlets within the claimed range)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP S6016828 A) in view of James (US 2593295 A), Jackson (NPL “Design of Atmospheric Burners”, copy provided in file wrapper), Argaw (US 20190359517 A1) and Ito (JP 2013140291 A) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Boughton (US 20200399163 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
further comprising heating the burner with the flame to a peak heating rate of equal to or greater than 60,000 degrees Celsius per second.
Boughton teaches of:
further comprising a peak heating rate of equal to or greater than 60,000 degrees Celsius per second (¶ [0083], The RF plasma heating apparatus 224 generally includes an inductor coiled around a plasma containment vessel 304 (FIG. 3) where one or more gasses are introduced such that a plasma may be formed when an RF current is passed through the inductor 308. In some embodiments, a cyclonic structure of the plasma is formed to provide tangentially uniform heating along the length of the plasma plume. Heating rates of or exceeding 5,000° C./s, of or exceeding 10,000° C./s, or of or exceeding 15,000° C./s, or of or exceeding 20,000° C./s, or of or exceeding 25,000° C./s, or of or exceeding 30,000° C./s, or of or exceeding 35,000° C./s, or of or exceeding 40,000° C./s are achievable to rapidly heat the optical fiber 216 and reduce attenuation of the optical fiber 216.)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the burner of the combined teachings so that the flame of the burner has a heating rate of 60,000 degrees Celsius per second or greater
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
achieving as high of a heating rate as possible reduces attenuation of the optical fiber (Boughton, ¶ [0083], exceeding 40,000° C./s are achievable to rapidly heat the optical fiber 216 and reduce attenuation of the optical fiber 216.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP S6016828 A) in view of James (US 2593295 A), Jackson (NPL “Design of Atmospheric Burners”, copy provided in file wrapper), Argaw (US 20190359517 A1) and Ito (JP 2013140291 A) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Yamamoto (US 20180044758 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a diameter of the aperture is greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm.
Yamamoto teaches of:
altering the distance of the flame from a burner to an object to be heated to adjust the amount of heat transferred to a desired amount (¶ [0074]-[0075], More specifically, a distance H from a tip 5a of the burner 5 to the steel plate 2 is preferably in a range of (30 to 110)×Q.sup.(1/3) mm, and more preferably in a range of (60 to 110)×Q.sup.(1/3) mm, when Q [Mcal/h] is a combustion amount per one burner 5. For example, if the combustion amount is 35 Mcal/h, it is more preferable to set the distance H in a range of approximately 200 to 360 mm. If it is shorter than 30×Q.sup.(1/3) mm, there is a high possibility of damaging the burner 5 due to rebounding of the flame D, and if it is longer than 110×Q.sup.(1/3) mm, the flow rate and temperature at the time the flame D collides with the steel plate 2 decrease, and high heat transfer efficiency cannot be obtained.)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the diameter of the aperture of the burner of James within Nishimura so that the aperture is greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
the diameter of ring burner is how the distance of the flame to the object to be heated is adjusted and therefore the diameter of the aperture has been found to be a result effective variable based on the following rationale:
Yamamoto teaches that the distance of the flame to an object to be heated affects the amount of heat transferred to the object being heated and can be optimized to achieve the desired amount of heat transfer (See citation of Yamamoto made above). Within the system of the combined teachings the diameter of the aperture is the only way to adjust the distance of the flame to the optical fiber and as such the diameter of the aperture is disclosed to be a result effective variable in the changing the aperture changes the distance of the flame the burner which changes the amount of heat transferred to the optical fiber. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the aperture of the combined teachings to be greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP S6016828 A) in view of James (US 2593295 A), Jackson (NPL “Design of Atmospheric Burners”, copy provided in file wrapper), Argaw (US 20190359517 A1) and Ito (JP 2013140291 A) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Miskolczy (US 4160641 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 6, and the combined teachings further teach:
further comprising conveying the fiber along a fiber conveyance pathway, the aperture being positioned along the fiber conveyance pathway (Nishimura, see the optical fiber 7 being conveyed from the top to the bottom of the system)
The combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein at least a portion of the fiber conveyance pathway is enclosed by an insulating member such that the insulating member is disposed on opposite sides of the burner.
Miskolczy teaches of:
wherein at least a portion of the fiber conveyance pathway is enclosed by an insulating member such that the insulating member is disposed on opposite sides of the burner (Fig. 1, insulating member 54 is positioned on both the upstream and downstream sides of burner 16)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
surround the furnace 1 and 6 of Nishimura with insulating members
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
insulating material would help maintain temperature within the furnace and prevent outside temperatures from affecting the temperatures within the furnace, improving efficiency
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP S6016828 A) in view of James (US 2593295 A), Jackson (NPL “Design of Atmospheric Burners”, copy provided in file wrapper), Argaw (US 20190359517 A1) and Ito (JP 2013140291 A) and Miskolczy (US 4160641 A) as presented in claim 7, and in further view of Rau (US 4877938 A) and “Fused Quartz Properties & Usage Guide” hereinafter referred to as NPL1 (copy of NPL provided)
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 7, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the insulating member comprises a fused quartz tube surrounded by felt.
Rau teaches of:
wherein the insulating member comprises a fused quartz tube (Fig. 1, 1) surrounded by felt (Fig. 1, 2; Col. 4, lines 27-30, The heat insulation tube 2 should not substantially absorb microwave energy. This is ensured by using commercially available materials, such as, Fiberfrax (Carborundum Werke GmbH).; Fiberfrax is felt).
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the insulation of the combined teachings so the first layer is fused silica (which is fused quartz) and it is surrounded by a felt insulation such as the Fiberfrax shown above
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
Applicant has placed no criticality on the particular insulation materials utilized, however, it is well known within the art that a fused quartz or silica tubing is useful for use within a furnace, particularly in the application of the combined teachings since fused quartz tubing can tolerate a wide range of temperature gradients and heat rates without cracking or otherwise deforming (NPL1, Thermal Properties paragraph, A related property is its unusually high thermal shock resistance. For example, thin sections can be heated rapidly to above 1500 øC and then plunged into water without cracking) and further the use of insulative felt as outlined in Rau is beneficial in that it would allow for thermal insulative properties to be maintained
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights