DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered. The amendments are supported by [0047, 48, 55] of the instant specification.
Amendments required removal of the Billings reference and inclusion of different excerpts of the Early reference from the 103 rejection of the independent claims. While the Early reference teaches the reducing agent as carbon monoxide, the Billings reference remains as pertinent prior art that reads on the other reducing agent species in dependent claim 5, though the reference is no longer required for the rejection.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khrapko et al (US-20070297735-A1) and further in view of Early et al (US-6813908-B2) and DeMass et al (US-20200361809-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Khrapko teaches a method of manufacturing an optical fiber [0021], the method comprising: forming an alkali-doped silica-containing tube [0042-43, 47]; collapsing the glass tube to form a first glass rod [0044]; depositing silica soot on the first glass body [0041, 47]; depositing additional silica soot on the first glass body [0047 (several additional deposition steps)]; exposing the silica soot on the first glass body to a halide dopant [0041, 47]; consolidating the silica soot on the first glass body to form a first preform precursor [0047] (“consolidated by downdriving…”); forming a first optical fiber preform from the first preform precursor [0047] (“final preform is achieved”); drawing the first optical fiber preform to produce an alkali doped optical fiber [0047] (“the completed optical fiber draw preform is drawn into an alkali metal oxide doped optical fiber”).
Khrapko teaches of exposing the silica soot to a chlorine-containing gas and fluorine-containing gas [0047], the latter being the halide dopant. Khrapko does not expressly teach of exposing the silica soot to at least a fluoride-containing dopant and a reducing agent simultaneously. In the same field of endeavor, Early teaches when exposing the glass body is exposed to fluoride-containing dopant the reducing agent is also present (Col. 5 Line 62-Col. 6 Line 6; Col. 9 Line 36-55, Example 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the fluorine doping exposure in an atmosphere with the reducing agent to react with excess oxygen present during the consolidation process (Col. 10 Line 1-11).
Khrapko teaches of drawing the first optical fiber preform to produce an alkali doped optical fiber [0047] (“the completed optical fiber draw preform is drawn into an alkali metal oxide doped optical fiber”). Khrapko does not teach of drawing two portions of the alkali doped optical fibers to measure their respective attenuation. In the same field of endeavor, DeMass teaches drawing fiber from the glass preform at various draw tensions [0092] (Fig. 6A at 50/70/100/125/150/200 g) to find the effect/variation in optical properties (Fig. 3-6) wherein there is a minimum difference of 20 grams between each draw tension used for the various draw tensions. DeMass highlights the results in a first draw tension range and a second draw tension range (about 70-120 grams and about 125-200 grams respectively [0153], Fig. 8A/B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to draw a first alkali doped fiber and a second alkali doped fiber at two drawing tensions as a known technique to tune properties of the optical fiber relative to a reference fiber [0143]. Furthermore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to draw within the two draw-tensions ranges taught by DeMass because of the known effect the drawing tension has on the characteristic cut-off wavelength as an optical property (decreasing wavelength with increasing tension in the first tension regime and increasing wavelength with increasing tension in the second tension regime [0136]).
DeMass teaches of measuring various draw tensions [0092] but does not expressly state the sequence of the various draw tensions measured; the first draw tension range and the second draw tension range are tension ranges wherein DeMass measured changing optical properties effects (regarding cut-off wavelength [0136]). In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to draw and measure the fiber from either low to high tension or high to low tension as the drawing and measuring would achieve the same result in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Khrapko teaches of attenuation less than about 0.16 dB/km at 1550 nm [0010] which encompasses the instantly claimed range; Khrapko is also motivated to reduce attenuation as low as possible [0005]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Khrapko does not teach the attenuation at 850 nm. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Because modified Khrapko teaches all the processing steps instantly claimed, there is a prima facie case of obviousness that the second alkali doped optical fiber has the same attenuation range at 850 nm.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khrapko et al (US-20070297735-A1) and further in view of DeMass et al (US-20200361809-A1) and Early et al (US-6813908-B2).
Regarding claim 1/3, Khrapko teaches a method of manufacturing an optical fiber [0021], the method comprising: forming an alkali-doped silica-containing tube [0042-43, 47]; collapsing the glass tube to form a first glass rod [0044]; depositing silica soot on the first glass body [0041, 47]; depositing additional silica soot on the first glass body [0047 (several additional deposition steps)]; exposing the silica soot on the first glass body to a halide dopant [0041, 47]; consolidating the silica soot on the first glass body to form a first preform precursor [0047] (“consolidated by downdriving…”); forming a first optical fiber preform from the first preform precursor [0047] (“final preform is achieved”); drawing the first optical fiber preform to produce an alkali doped optical fiber [0047] (“the completed optical fiber draw preform is drawn into an alkali metal oxide doped optical fiber”).
Khrapko teaches of drawing the first optical fiber preform to produce an alkali doped optical fiber [0047] (“the completed optical fiber draw preform is drawn into an alkali metal oxide doped optical fiber”). Khrapko does not teach of drawing two portions of the alkali doped optical fibers to measure their respective attenuation. In the same field of endeavor, DeMass teaches drawing fiber from the glass preform at various draw tensions [0092] (Fig. 6A at 50/70/100/125/150/200 g) to find the effect/variation in optical properties (Fig. 3-6) wherein there is a minimum difference of 20 grams between each draw tension used for the various draw tensions. DeMass highlights the results in a first draw tension range and a second draw tension range (about 70-120 grams and about 125-200 grams respectively [0153], Fig. 8A/B). DeMass teaches a third tension range being set when a selecting a specific draw tension that has the desired optical fiber properties [0092, 143] from either of the draw tension regimes [0137]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to draw a first alkali doped fiber and a second alkali doped fiber at two drawing tensions as a known technique to tune properties of the optical fiber relative to a reference fiber and drawing a third/tuned optical fiber from the tension range regime with desired properties [0143]. Furthermore, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to draw within the two draw-tensions ranges taught by DeMass because of the known effect the drawing tension has on the characteristic cut-off wavelength as an optical property (decreasing wavelength with increasing tension in the first tension regime and increasing wavelength with increasing tension in the second tension regime [0136]).
DeMass teaches of measuring various draw tensions [0092] but does not expressly state the sequence of the various draw tensions measured; the first draw tension range and the second draw tension range are tension ranges wherein DeMass measured changing optical properties effects (regarding cut-off wavelength [0136]). In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to draw and measure the fiber from either low to high tension or high to low tension as the drawing and measuring would achieve the same result in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Khrapko teaches of exposing the silica soot to a chlorine-containing gas and fluorine-containing gas [0047], the latter being the halide dopant. Khrapko does not expressly teach of exposing the silica soot to at least a fluoride-containing dopant and a reducing agent simultaneously. In the same field of endeavor, Early teaches when exposing the glass body is exposed to fluoride-containing dopant the reducing agent is also present (Col. 5 Line 62-Col. 6 Line 6; Col. 9 Line 36-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the fluorine doping exposure in an atmosphere with the reducing agent to react with excess oxygen present during the consolidation process (Col. 10 Line 1-11).
DeMass teaches of drawing glass preforms at different draw tensions [0092] wherein the fibers are drawn from a set/known draw tension for a desired optical properties [0092] such as attenuation [0113] wherein the glass preforms are cut/derived from a single master preform [0092]. DeMass teaches of measuring attenuation as a function of wavelength (Fig. 6A) at different draw tensions but does not expressly measure the attenuation as a function of draw tension. In the same field of endeavor, Early teaches of drawing fiber from the same optical fiber preform at different draw tensions and measuring the respective attenuation (Col. 20 Line 48-52, Fig. 9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to draw a first alkali doped fiber and a second alkali doped fiber at two drawing tensions and measure the attenuation of each fiber because draw tension is a known cause-effective variable that modifies attenuation change.
Khrapko teaches of attenuation less than about 0.16 dB/km at 1550 nm [0010] which encompasses the instantly claimed range; Khrapko is also motivated to reduce attenuation as low as possible [0005]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Khrapko does not teach the attenuation at 850 nm. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Because modified Khrapko teaches all the processing steps instantly claimed, there is a prima facie case of obviousness that the second alkali doped optical fiber has the same attenuation range at 850 nm.
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Khrapko teaches the first glass rod is doped with an alkali comprising at least one of sodium, potassium, and rubidium [0012].
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, Early teaches the reducing agent is carbon monoxide (Col. 5 Line 30-35, Col. 9 Line 42-55).
Regarding claims 7-8, depending from claim 1, Khrapko teaches of attenuation less than about 0.16 dB/km at 1550 nm [0010]. Khrapko does not teach the attenuation at 850 nm. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Because modified Khrapko teaches all the processing steps instantly claimed, there is a prima facie case of obviousness that the third alkali doped optical fiber has the same attenuation range at 850 nm.
Regarding claims 10, depending from claim 1, Khrapko teaches of attenuation less than about 0.16 dB/km at 1550 nm [0010] which encompasses the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claim 11, 15, 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Khrapko et al (US-20070297735-A1), DeMass et al (US-20200361809-A1), and Early et al (US-6813908-B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foster et al (US-20070022786-A1).
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 1, modified Khrapko relies on the attenuation modification of Early by exposing the silica soot on the glass body to a reducing agent (Col. 9 Line 42-6, Col. 10 Line 22-40). There is also inherent cooling of the drawn fiber as the product is assumed to reach room temperature. In related drawing fiber from a preform art, Foster teaches of exposing the drawn fiber to a cooling apparatus [0008, 59], the cooling apparatus downstream of a draw furnace [0035], and operating the cooling apparatus in a temperature range that overlaps the instantly claimed range [0008, 48, 74] (above 1100 and below 1500°C) for a duration that overlaps the instantly claimed range [0013, 74] (greater than 0.07 and less than 0.25 seconds). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to expose the third alkali doped optical fiber of modified Khrapko to a cooling apparatus downstream from the draw furnace at a workable time duration and operating temperature as a known additional process step to minimize undesirable increase in attenuation during its cooling following the drawing step [0030, 32]. "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).
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 11, Foster teaches exposing the optical fiber to the cooling apparatus for a duration that overlaps the instantly claimed range [0013] (greater than 0.07 and less than 0.25 seconds). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the exposure duration that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 17-18, depending from claim 11, the reducing agent of modified Khrapko relies on Early teaching reducing agent is incorporated with a carrier gas to form a mixed gas comprising up to 4000 ppm of the reducing agent (Col. 12 Line 35-48 ). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-7469559-B2, US-20140254997-A1, US-20200247710-A1, US-20220206214-A1 teaches an alkali doped core fluorine dope cladding optical fiber preform method to reduce attenuation, primary reference substitutes
EP-3173388-B1 teach fluorine and chlorine doped cladding and alkali and fluorine doped core
WO-2019218525-A1 teaches fluorine and alkali doped optical fiber/preform
US-20210032153-A largely teaches the DeMass reference
US-5851259-A teaches first draw tension of 10-50 g and second draw tension of 150-250 g
US-20030200772-A1 teaches adjusting draw tension while heat aging (claim 11)
US-20120125053-A1 teaches different draw tensions to adjust the attenuation at 850 nm
US-20180016181-A1 illustrates attenuation vs tension for multi-core fibers
US-20020197035-A1 teaches the use of a reducing agent on the silica soot on glass body to increase attenuation
US-20160009589-A1 teaches the reducing agent is carbon monoxide, silicon tetrachloride, chloromethane, dichloromethane, chloroform [0073]
US-4690504-A teaches using chloromethane with fluorine dopants
WO-02051762-A1, US-20020197035-A1, US-20020194877-A1 teaches using reducing agents/carbon monoxide while fluorine doping
CN-105939974-A teaches of using silicon tetrachloride/carbon monoxide/fluoride-containing dopant together
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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights