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 Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 07/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 remain pending. Claim 3 is cancelled and moved into Claim 1. Claim 1, in addition to the Amendment of moving Claim 3 into Claim 1, is amended to include additional features.
Applicant’s Arguments with respect 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections, page 8, with respect to Claim 1, and to
35 U.S.C 103 Rejections, pages 9-10, with respect to Claim Rejections 1 (and respective dependent
claims 2, 4-13, and 16) and pages 10-11 with respect to Claim Rejections 14-15, and to Non-Statutory
Double Patenting for Claims 1, 14-15 in the Non-Final rejection dated 02/26/2026 have been considered
persuasive have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the amendment bringing Claim
3 into Claim 1 and the additional amendment features a new ground(s) of rejection is
made in view of Horiguchi and in further in view of USPGPUB 20040206128A1 by Zilnyk. The Examiner
will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
The amendment regarding widening of the anti-resonant element (ARE) preform outer tube is
not references by any of the cited prior art of record and a prima facie case of obviousness is not
established, and that the widening of the ARE preform serves the purpose of holding the ARE
preform in a controlled longitudinal position.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
In agreement with the Applicant. Yet, in an analogous manner, Zilnyk cites the use of a larger diameter rod for a known in the art “rod-in-tube” method to manufacture an optical fiber preform for elongation and collapsing, where the larger diameter rod serves to center/align the rod with the tube (motivation) where the tube is analogous to the passage. While the purpose of the widened diameter of the ARE outer tube may be longitudinal positioning of the ARE preform in the cladding, and the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, and MPEP 2144 (IV).
Further Note by Examiner:
other Amendments to Claim 1 are supported by Horiguchi (Claim 3 moved into Claim1) and Mukasa (diameter/length of cladding, the anti-resonance element preforms are not fixed to the cladding tube wall by a flame-based hot forming process, by passing the assembly through an electric furnace, the anti-resonance element preforms are thermally fixed in a flame-free manner to the cladding tube wall ).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at a first ARE preform end, each ARE outer tube has a widening of an outer diameter thereof, which is larger than an inner diameter of the passage openings (Claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 through 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 U.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).
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of JP
2018150184A by Mukasa et. al (herein “Mukasa”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,950,073 by
Horiguchi et. al. (herein “Horiguchi”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20190300420A1 by
Nakanishi et. al. (herein “Nakanishi”) and in further view U.S. Patent 6,568,218 by Meuller et. al (herein
“Meuller”) and in further view of “Hollow Core Optical Fibers with comparable attenuation to silica fibers between 600 and 1100nm”, Nature Communications, by Sakr et. al. (herein “Sakr”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20040206128A1 by Zilnyk (herein “Zilnyk”).
Regarding Claim 1, Mukasa teaches:
A method for producing a preform
a) providing a cladding tube which has a cladding tube inner bore and a cladding tube
longitudinal axis, along which a cladding tube wall extends, which is limited by an inner side
and an outer side See Fig. 6, element 11, [0026] lines 3-4. Note, “base material tube”,
“base material pipe” in [0026] each conveys element 11 in Fig. 6.
the cladding tube having an outer diameter in a range of 65mm to 300mm and a length of at
least 1m; Fig. 5, Fig. 6 , [0022],[0026] “…The outer diameter D 21 of the rod-shaped member
21 is set to be approximately equal to the outer diameter D 11 of the base pipe 11”, “…The
length L2 of the base pipe 11 can be set as appropriate…”. Here, Mukasa discloses that there
is a diameter and a length to the base pipe 11 (cladding) except for the exact diameter and
length of the cladding.
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 optimize the length and diameter of the cladding,
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior
art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One
would have been motivated to optimize the length and diameter of the cladding to meet
the requirements of the preform, as noted by Mukasa stating for the length L2 of the pipe
11 can be set as appropriate, would also be reasonable for the diameter ([0026], lines 4-
5).Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover optimum working 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
b) preparing a number of anti-resonance element preforms each comprising an ARE outer
tube and an ARE inner tube inserted therein. See Fig. 18a, [0078] lines 2-3. The Examiner
has interpreted equivalence for the referenced “capillary” or “capillaries” as ARE tube(s) in
the context of the reference ([0027] lines 2-3.
c) preparing a positioning template, having a number of passage openings passing through
the positioning template adapted for a longitudinal guidance of an anti-resonance element
preform each; See Fig. 5a/b, Fig.6a element 20a, [0022] lines 1-4.
wherein the positioning template and the cladding tube are made of identical material;
See [0026], lines 3-4; [0022], line 2.
the positioning template and the cladding tube comprise essentially the same chemical
substance; Fig 7a., [0025], [0027], “As a method of manufacturing the first positioning jig 20
a and the second positioning jig 20 b, for example, by mechanically drilling a single quartz
bar…”, “In step S3 of FIG. 4, as shown in FIG. 7 (a), a plurality of capillaries 12a to 12g for
forming a plurality of inner cladding pipes 2a to 2g shown in FIG. 1 are prepared. The
plurality of capillaries 12 a to 12 g are thin tubes made of quartz glass…”
d) attaching the positioning template to a first end of the cladding tube (base material tube
11); See Fig. 6b, element 11, [0026] lines 8-10.
e) inserting at least parts of the anti-resonance element preforms through the passage
openings for arranging the anti-resonance element preforms in the cladding tube inner
bore; See Fig. 14, Fig. 18a, Fig. 18b, Fig. 19, [0075], lines 1-7.
f) processing an assembly comprising
the cladding tube; See Fig. 18b element 11.
the anti-resonance element preforms; See Fig. 18b elements 12a-12j, 14a-14j.
and the positioning template; See Fig. 18, element 50a.
by means of a hot-forming process, selected from at least one of elongating and
collapsing, by passing the assembly through an electric furnace;
See Fig. 4/S5, [0035], lines 1-2; “A drawing step is performed in step S5
of Fig. 4 to heat and elongate…”, “...to a drawing furnace (heating furnace) and is
drawn..”. [0035] describes the general embodiment of
drawing in step S5 which is applied to all other embodiments in the reference.
While Mukasa is not explicit about an electric furnace, electric furnaces for drawing fiber
preforms is common in the art. 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).
the positioning template has at least one centering surface; Fig. 16a element 50a;
which cooperates with the first end of the cladding tube; See Fig. 18a/b, elements
50a/11; element 50a end face that is facing upwards towards the bottom end face
of the cladding tube.
the anti-resonance element preforms are arranged at target positions in step e)
"inserting"; See Fig. 18b, elements 12a-12j, 14a-14j.
wherein,
prior to step f), the anti-resonance element preforms are not fixed to the cladding
tube wall by a flame-based hot forming process; Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0045], “…At this
time, as shown in FIG. 11, a plurality of capillaries 12 a to 12 h are inserted into the
recess between the tubular member 31 of the first positioning jig 30 and the
plurality of teeth 33 a to 33 h of the gear-like member 32, One ends of a plurality of
capillaries 12 a to 12 h are respectively sandwiched between the teeth 33 a to 33 h
so as to fix the plurality of capillaries 12 a to 12 h.”
in step f), by passing the assembly through the electric furnace, the anti-resonance
element preforms are thermally fixed in a flame-free manner to the cladding tube
wall without deposition of soot or burn-off on the assembly; “even if the plurality of
first capillaries 12 a to 12 j and the plurality of second capillaries 14 a to 14 j are
fixed to the base pipe 11 by fusion or adhesion or the like to prevent falling off from
the base pipe 11…” (See [0078], lines 4-6,) .
Mukasa does not specifically teach,
anti-resonant preforms are thermally fixed in a flame free manner to the cladding tube wall in step f “processing” by passing the assembly through an electric furnace.
In the same field of endeavor, Horiguchi teaches a method to fuse glass core rods to an outer
cylindrical glass jacket where glass rods make tangential contact to the inner wall of the glass jacket
(Abstract, Fig.1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4) to make a preform for an eccentric core optical waveguide (Col 3 lines 57-
65). In the fabrication process, the glass core 1 and the glass jacket 2 or 5 are fused together at the
contact area and the eccentric core optical waveguides having construction shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 may
be manufactured. The preform is at first heated by a high frequency heater and then fabricated by a
glass fiber drawing apparatus (Col 4 lines 7-13). In industry, a high frequency heater is an inductive
heater that uses AC electric current, which reads. Horiguchi teaches the claimed invention except for
use on anti-resonance elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the heater of Horiguchi
in the method of Mukasa, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of to reduce the
deformation of the fused anti resonant elements, as noted by Horiguchi (Col 4 lines 22-23). Further,
electric furnaces are common in the optical fiber industry. 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).
Mukasa does not teach a self-centering manner of the positioning template. In the same field of
endeavor, Nakanishi teaches a pipe and positioning plate “both being slightly tapered and mechanically
fitted to each other” (See [0021], lines 1-5) which could provide further benefit to Mukasa from
Nakanishi for centering. 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). Yet Nakanishi does not explicitly state, one centering surface cooperating in a self-
centering manner
In an analogous method in the same field of endeavor, Meuller teaches a “self-centering and
self-nesting joint for starter and exhaust tubes…to create a combined preform” (See Fig. 2/2A/2B
Page 14, Col 5, lines 31-34, 16-21) where the starter tube (Fig. 2, element 10) has a surface for
centering in the joint (Fig. 2A, element 13) and “the exhaust and starter tubes have a self-centering
profile, or “nesting” feature (Page 12, Col 2, lines 51-55). 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
teaching of Meuller to the positioning template of Musaka to ensure proper alignment, and in the case
of Musaka alignment between the positioning template (jig) and the cladding tube (base pipe material),
as noted by Meuller (Page 12, Col 2, lines 3-7). In addition, 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).
While Mukasa teaches the positioning template and the cladding are made of identical material for an
ARE preform used for drawing optical fiber, Mukasa fails to teach,
a total mass of the different chemical elements in the positioning template and the cladding
tube is less than 1% by weight.
In a similar endeavor of anti-resonant optical fiber fabrication, Sakr teaches that the industry since the
1970’s have searched for ways to reduce propagation loss in glass-based light waveguiding technology.
Further, that those efforts have managed to suppress absorptions from metallic impurities and hydroxyl
overtones (i.e. beta-OH, which is known constituent that affects optical fiber performance) by reducing
impurities in the glass to part per billion levels where the remaining intrinsic loss is Rayleigh scattering.
Continuing, the industry has continued to investigate drawable glass compositions offering the lowest
Rayleigh scattering (Para. 2, Para. 3). Metallic impurities and OH levels in optical fiber are known cause
effective variables in the industry and are controlled to the part per billion level, much lower than 1%
wt. Further, as the positioning template and cladding of Mukasa would inherently be part of the drawn
fiber, where their chemical elements would need to be of a similar value as the optical fiber, i.e. in the
part per billion range. As metallic impurities and OH are result effective variables that achieve a
recognized result, 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 optimize the level of different chemical elements, since it
has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill
in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the level of different chemical elements for the
purpose of reducing propagation loss in the glass optical fiber drawing from the preform of Mukasa..
In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
While Mukasa discloses the ARE preforms inserted into the jigs, Mukasa does not disclose,
wherein at a first ARE preform end, each ARE outer tube has a widening of an outer
diameter thereof, which is larger than an inner diameter of the passage openings;
In an analogous endeavor of a method of making an optical fiber preform by the known in the art “rod
in tube” method [0002] where preform is elongated and collapsed [0020], Zilnyk discloses a glass tube
and a rod that is inserted in the glass tube. The glass rod has a portion of its diameter larger than the
inner diameter (passage opening) of the glass tube ([0008],[0009], Fig. 2). Zilnyk discloses the claimed
invention except for an outer anti-resonant element in a passage 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
deploy the concept of a larger diameter at the end of a glass rod of Zilnyk in the method of Mukasa for
the outer anti-resonant elements, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of centering
(alignment) of the outer anti-resonant element in the passage, as noted by Zilnyk ([0047], lines 5-8.
Regarding Claim 2 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Meuller further teaches a method of a lip formed in the end of the exhaust tube (the cladding partially cut out in the region of the first end to form a counter centering surface) (See Fig. 2A/B element 19, Page 12, Col 2, lines 56-58) that engages the starter tube (which cooperates with the centering surface in a positive manner) (See Fig. 2A element 13, Fig. 2B - the end face of element 10 opposite element 19).
Regarding Claim 4 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Mukasa further teaches where the cladding tube has a second end; See Fig. 6, element 11; illustrates the base material pipe (cladding tube) has a first end and a second end opposite the first end.
Regarding Claim 5 which depends on Claim 4 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Mukasa further teaches:
(i) creating a second positioning template having a number of second passage openings
passing through the second positioning template; adapted for a longitudinal guidance of an
anti-resonance element preform each; wherein the second positioning template and the
cladding tube are made of the same material; (ii) combining the second positioning template
with the second end of the cladding tube See Fig. 8a, Fig. 8b element 20b/11, [0022] line 2,
[0024] lines 1-3, [0025] lines 1-5, [0026], lines 1-7, [0038] lines 6-8.
Regarding Claim 6 which depends on Claims 5/4 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Musaka further teaches:
(iii) inserting at least parts of the anti-resonance element preforms through the second
passage openings of the second positioning template; (iv) wherein the second positioning
template has at least one second centering surface; which cooperates with the second end
of the cladding tube; See Fig. 8b element 20b/11 Fig. 8b, [0030]
lines 1-7, [0031] lines 1-6, [0038] lines 6-8.
in such a way that the anti-resonance element preforms are arranged at target positions in
step (iii) "inserting". See Fig. 18b; elements 12a-12j/14a-14j.
Mukasa does not teach a self -centering of the second positioning template with the second end of the
cladding tube. Meuller teaches self-centering of the second position template for alignment, and in the
case of Mukasa, alignment between the second positioning template (jig) and the
cladding tube (base pipe material) as noted by Meuller (Page 12, Col 2, lines 3-7). In addition, 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 7 which depends on claim 6/5/4 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 6, teaches claim 6 and all of the claims from which it depends.
Of particular interest is Meuller’s self -centering structure. While it does not teach “using a partial cut
out to center a second end of the cladding tube” it would have been obvious to further apply Meuller’s
self-centering method/structure relied upon above to any additional positioning templates/points
where centering would be useful. In addition, 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 8 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Mukasa further teaches:
A/ preparing a third positioning template having a number of third passage openings passing
through the third positioning template adapted for a longitudinal guidance of an anti-
resonance element preform each wherein the third positioning template has at least one
third centering surface. (See Fig 15b, element 50b, Fig. 18a element 50b, [0068] lines 1-4;
[0071] lines 5-7, [0076] lines 5-7). Note, the Examiner interprets [0076] line 6 of the
translation to properly read “...inserted into the third positioning
Regarding Claims 9 /10, which depend on claim 8/9 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Musaka further teaches:
B/ producing a tubular closing element, wherein the closing element has an active surface
in the region of a first end region in order to cooperate with the third centering surface in
particular to cooperate in a positive manner; C/ linking the third positioning template to the
first end region (See Fig. 23a/b, element 15a/11; [0015], lines 1-5); [0110] lines 3-6).
E/ pushing at least parts of the anti-resonance element preforms through the third passage
openings in order to arrange the anti-resonance element preforms in the cladding tube
inner bore in such a way that the anti-resonance element preforms are arranged at target
positions (See Fig. 14, Fig. 23b, and by arrangement ([0015], lines 1-5; Fig. 18a, Fig. 18b,
elements 12a-12j, 14a-14j).
Furthermore, Mukasa teaches structural elements of a first positioning jig, a second positioning
jig, a third positioning jig, a fourth positioning jig, a dummy tube (tubular closing element) and a base
material pipe (cladding tube) but does not teach specifically the claimed order. Musaka teaches
order is changeable ([0015], lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to arrange the dummy tube (tubular
closing element), the base material (cladding tube) and the third positioning jog (template) in any
relative order.
The combination of Mukasa applied to claim 9/10 above does not teach a third centering
surface that is self-centering. Of particular interest is Meuller’s self -centering structure. While it
does not teach “the third centering surface cooperates with the active surface in a self -centering
manner” it would have been obvious to further apply Meuller’s self-centering method/structure relied
upon above to any additional positioning templates/points where centering would be useful. In
addition, 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 11, which depends on claim 5/4 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Musaka further teaches where in at least one of the following steps comprises a flame free thermal connecting or flame-based thermal connecting:
step b) – not addressed.
step d) “attaching”. In claim 1, the step of attaching is defined as attaching a positioning template to the first end of the cladding tube; Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0026], “…the connecting portion between the end portion of the preform pipe 11 and the end portion of the first positioning jig 20 a is heated by flame…”
and
step ii “combining”. In claim 5, the step of combining is defined as combining the second positioning template with the second end of the cladding tube; Fig 8., [0032] “the connecting portion between the base material pipe 11 and the second positioning jig 20 b is heated by flame…”
Regarding Claim 12, which depends on claim 1 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Mukasa teaches wherein prior to step f) “processing”, the anti-resonant preforms are only held by means of (or otherwise without a substance-to-substance bond in the cladding tube inner bore):
the positioning template, or the positioning template and the second positioning template or the positioning template and the third positioning template (See Fig. 10a, elements 31/32; [0009], lines 1-5; [0010], lines 1-5). Musaka teaches using at least one of a first positioning jig and a second positioning jig, where each jig comprises a tubular member (base material pipe) with another tubular member disposed inside, where the tubular member disposed inside has a gear-like member with teeth. The capillary tubes (anti-resonant elements) are “sandwiched” between the inner tube gear-like member, the base material pipe, and the gear-like member and “fixes the capillary”.
Furthermore, Mukasa teaches structural elements of a first positioning jig, a second
positioning jig, a third positioning jig, a fourth positioning jig, a dummy tube (tubular
closing element), and a base material pipe (cladding tube) but does not teach specifically the
claimed order. Musaka further teaches order is changeable [0015], lines 1-5). It would have
been obvious to arrange the positioning jig (template), the second positioning jig (template) and
the third positioning jig (template) in any relative order.
.
Regarding Claim 13, which depends on claim 1 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Mukasa further teaches wherein,
the positioning template and/or the second positioning template and/or the third
positioning template has at least one gas flow element;
which connects the cladding tube inner bore to the surrounding area of the preform in a
fluid-conducting manner. See Fig. 5a/b element 23, Fig. 6a/b, element 11/21/23; [0023],
lines 1-7, Fig. 9a/b, elements 20a/20b/11; [0035], lines 3-7).
Fig. 6a illustrates an embodiment where a positioning jig (template) is attached to the base pipe
material (cladding tube) where the “axis of the base material pipe 11 (cladding tube) and the first
positioning jig are aligned with each other” ([0026], lines 3-8), showing alignment of the element 23
(through-hole) and the inner bore of the cladding tube (element 11) which creates a clear passage from
the through hole to the inner bore of the cladding tube to the surrounding area.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends on claims 10/9/8 - Mukasa, Horiguchi, Nakanishi, Meuller, Sakr, and Zilnyk as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Musaka further teaches where in at least one of the following steps comprises a flame free thermal connecting or flame-based thermal connecting:
step b) “preparing”. In claim 1, step of preparing is defined as preparing a number of anti-resonant element (ARE) preforms, each comprising and ARE outer tube and ARE inner tube; Fig. 14, Fig. 18a, Fig. 18b, [0074], “As shown in FIG. 18 (a), a plurality of capillaries (second capillaries) 14 a to 14 j for forming a plurality of auxiliary clad portions 4 a to 4 j shown in FIG. 14 are prepared.”
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of WO2018169487 by
Yoo et. al (herein “Yoo”) and in further view of JP 2018150184A by Mukasa et. al (herein “Mukasa”).
Regarding Claim 14 - Yoo teaches a secondary preform, from a preform, may be drawn
(elongating) to cane (e.g., a secondary fiber preform) (Figs 1A-1C, [0018] lines 1-2, [0070] lines
3-5. While Yoo does not specify the structure of the secondary preform, Mukasa teaches the structure
of the secondary preform in claim 1:
a) preparing a cladding tube which has a cladding tube inner bore and a cladding tube
longitudinal axis, along which a cladding tube wall extends, which is limited by an inner side
and an outer side See Fig. 6, element 11, [0026] lines 3-4. Note, “base material tube”,
“base material pipe” in [0026] each conveys element 11 in Fig. 6.
b) preparing a number of anti-resonance element preforms each comprising an ARE outer
tube and an ARE inner tube inserted therein. See Fig. 18a, [0078] lines 2-3. The Examiner
has interpreted equivalence for the referenced “capillary” or “capillaries” as ARE tube(s) in
the context of the reference ([0027] lines 2-3.
c) preparing a positioning template, having a number of passage openings passing through
the positioning template adapted for a longitudinal guidance of an anti-resonance element
preform each; See Fig. 5a/b, Fig.6a element 20a, [0022] lines 1-4.
wherein the positioning template and the cladding tube are made of identical material;
See [0026], lines 3-4; [0022], line 2.
d) attaching the positioning template to a first end of the cladding tube (base material tube
11); See Fig. 6b, element 11, [0026] lines 8-10.
e) inserting at least parts of the anti-resonance element preforms through the passage
openings for arranging the anti-resonance element preforms in the cladding tube inner
bore; See Fig. 14, Fig. 18a, Fig. 18b, Fig. 19, [0075], lines 1-7.
f) processing an assembly comprising
the cladding tube; See Fig. 18b element 11.
the anti-resonance element preforms; See Fig. 18b elements 12a-12j, 14a-14j.
and the positioning template; See Fig. 18, element 50a.
by means of a hot-forming process, selected from at least one of elongating and
collapsing. See Fig. 4/S5, [0035], lines 1-2; “A drawing step is performed in step S5
of Fig. 4 to heat and elongate…”. [0035] describes the general embodiment of
drawing in step S5 which is applied to all other embodiments in the reference.
the positioning template has at least one centering surface; Fig. 16a element 50a;
which cooperates with the first end of the cladding tube; See Fig. 18a/b, elements
50a/11; element 50a end face that is facing upwards towards the bottom end face
of the cladding tube.
the anti-resonance element preforms
are arranged at target positions in step e) "inserting"; See Fig. 18b, elements 12a-
12j, 14a-14j.
As fabricating cane is well-known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the structure of Mukasa to make the secondary preform (cane) of Yoo. 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 15, Yoo teaches optical fiber may be obtained by drawing (elongating) the
preform (Fig.2B, [0071] lines 1-4). While Yoo does not specify the structure of the preform,
Mukasa teaches the structure of the preform in claim 1:
a) preparing a cladding tube which has a cladding tube inner bore and a cladding tube
longitudinal axis, along which a cladding tube wall extends, which is limited by an inner side
and an outer side See Fig. 6, element 11, [0026] lines 3-4. Note, “base material tube”,
“base material pipe” in [0026] each conveys element 11 in Fig. 6.
b) preparing a number of anti-resonance element preforms each comprising an ARE outer
tube and an ARE inner tube inserted therein. See Fig. 18a, [0078] lines 2-3. The Examiner
has interpreted equivalence for the referenced “capillary” or “capillaries” as ARE tube(s) in
the context of the reference ([0027] lines 2-3.
c) preparing a positioning template, having a number of passage openings passing through
the positioning template adapted for a longitudinal guidance of an anti-resonance element
preform each; See Fig. 5a/b, Fig.6a element 20a, [0022] lines 1-4.
wherein the positioning template and the cladding tube are made of identical material;
See [0026], lines 3-4; [0022], line 2.
d) attaching the positioning template to a first end of the cladding tube (base material tube
11); See Fig. 6b, element 11, [0026] lines 8-10.
e) inserting at least parts of the anti-resonance element preforms through the passage
openings for arranging the anti-resonance element preforms in the cladding tube inner
bore; See Fig. 14, Fig. 18a, Fig. 18b, Fig. 19, [0075], lines 1-7.
f) processing an assembly comprising
the cladding tube; See Fig. 18b element 11.
the anti-resonance element preforms; See Fig. 18b elements 12a-12j, 14a-14j.
and the positioning template; See Fig. 18, element 50a.
by means of a hot-forming process, selected from at least one of elongating and
collapsing. See Fig. 4/S5, [0035], lines 1-2; “A drawing step is performed in step S5
of Fig. 4 to heat and elongate…”. [0035] describes the general embodiment of
drawing in step S5 which is applied to all other embodiments in the reference.
the positioning template has at least one centering surface; Fig. 16a element 50a;
which cooperates with the first end of the cladding tube; See Fig. 18a/b, elements
50a/11; element 50a end face that is facing upwards towards the bottom end face
of the cladding tube.
the anti-resonance element preforms
are arranged at target positions in step e) "inserting"; See Fig. 18b, elements 12a-
12j, 14a-14j.
As drawing preforms into fiber is known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the structure of Mukasa to draw (elongate) the preform of Yoo. 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
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights