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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (s) (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2024 and 07/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12, 18-20 in the reply filed on 10/02/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 21-25 have been added with no new material in the reply filed on 10/02/2025. Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected METHOD, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/02/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims below is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 5 - “first end and the second end of the work volume”/ “first end of the work volume and the second end of the work volume”; “first and second temperatures”/”first temperature and second temperature”.
Regarding Claim 6 - “along a length of work volume”/ “along the length of work volume”.
Regarding Claim 20 – “the plurality of heating”/” the plurality of heating means”.
Regarding Claim 21 – “from the temperature sensors”/”from the plurality of temperature sensors”.
Regarding Claim 22 – “comprising fiber diameter sensors”/”comprising a plurality of fiber diameter sensors; “ the heating elements”/” the plurality of heating elements”; “from the fiber diameter sensors”/” from the plurality of fiber diameter sensors”.
Regarding Claim 23 – “ the heating elements”/” the plurality of heating elements; “comprise heater windings”/”comprise a plurality of heater windings”.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner understands the following:
Regarding Claims 3 and 6 – Within the instant application, a Gaussian winding distribution of heater winding results in a Gaussian temperature distribution.
Regarding Claim 4, 7, 9, 21, and 24 – the word “coupled” may mean attached, connected, joined; or to be associated with and combined, without physical attachment.
Regarding Claim 25, which is dependent on Claim 21 the recitation of “first gravity environment” and “second gravity environment” is an intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
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
Claim 5, 7, 21-25 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.
Regarding Claim 5 cites “wherein the temperature between the first end”, wherein regard to “the temperature” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants recite “wherein a 3rd temperature between the first end”.
Regarding Claim 7 – cites “from the plurality of temperature sensors”, wherein there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants recite “from a plurality of temperature sensors”.
Regarding Claim 21 – for the phrase, “and controller circuitry to receive information from the temperature sensors and control the heating elements to provide a desired non-uniform temperature distribution across the plurality of work volumes”, it is unclear ,
if a single controller circuitry receives information from all temperature sensors to control all the heating elements to provide a desired non-uniform temperature distribution for each of the work volumes, or
if there are multiple controller circuitry where each respective controller circuitry receives information from respective temperature sensors and controls the respective heating elements for the respective work volume to provide a respective desired non-uniform temperature distribution for the respective work volume, or
a combination of a) and b)
For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands that a) or b) or c) above apply.
Regarding Claim 22 – for the phrase, “controller circuitry is to further control the heating elements based on information received from the fiber diameter sensors” it is unclear ,
if a single controller circuitry controls all the heating elements based on information received from all the fiber diameter sensors, or
if there are multiple controller circuitry where each respective controller circuitry receives information from respective fiber diameter sensors and controls the respective heating elements, or
a combination of a) and b)
For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands that a) or b) or c) above apply.
Regarding Claim 23 – cites “comprise heater windings”, wherein there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants recite ”comprise a plurality of heater windings”.
Regarding Claim 24 – for the phrase, “comprising a cooling element coupled to the work volumes” it is unclear ,
if a single cooling element is coupled to all the work volumes, or
if there are multiple cooling elements where each respective cooling element is coupled to a respective work volume, or
a combination of a) and b)
For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands that a) or b) or c) above apply.
Regarding Claim 25 –it is unclear ,
if a single controller circuitry controls the element of the first gravity environment and the second gravity environment, or
if there are multiple controller circuitry where each respective controller circuitry controls elements of a respective gravity environment, or
a combination of a) and b)
For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands that a) or b) or c) above apply.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and/or dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH01179738A
(as submitted as NPL dated 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chigusa teaches a system comprising,
a work volume for material processing; Fig. 4 illustrates an optical fiber draw furnace with an internal work volume with a double crucible residing in the work volume.
one or more heating elements coupled to the work volume; Fig. 4, lines 44-45 “ The heating unit 8 is formed of, for example, a carbon heater”. Fig. 4 element 8 illustrates a heater on either side of the work volume.
controller circuitry to control the one or more heating elements; Page 1 lines 37-39, “the interaction between the heating section and the heat insulating section including the temperature control means allows the temperature control of the heat zone in the drawing furnace to be freely performed”.
to provide a pre- determined non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume; Fig. 1, Page 1 lines 52-55, Page 2 lines 1-4, “…and various types of piping are possible in consideration of the temperature distribution in the heat zone. What is important is that a predetermined temperature gradient is created by the piping…in consideration of the amount of heat transmitted from the heating unit 8”, “The refrigerant is supplied from the refrigerant supply means 9d to the pipe 9b via the flow valve 9c. Since the pipe 9c is provided in the heat insulating material 9a and the flow rate can be controlled by the flow valve 9C, a predetermined temperature distribution can be formed in the heat zone in the drawing furnace.” Fig. 4 illustrates coolant pipe 9b, that along with the heater elements 8, are controlled to provide the temperature gradient along the length of the draw furnace.
Claim 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH01179738A
(as submitted as NPL dated 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”).
Regarding Claim 18, Chigusa teaches a system comprising,
a work volume for material processing; Fig. 4 illustrates an optical fiber draw furnace with an internal work volume with a double crucible residing in the work volume.
means for controlling a temperature distribution; Fig. 1 Page 1 lines 37-39, 51-55, “the interaction between the heating section and the heat insulating section including the temperature control means allows the temperature control of the heat zone in the drawing furnace to be freely performed”, “the piping of the pipe 9b is not limited…and various types of piping are possible in consideration of the temperature distribution in the heat zone…The shape, length, material, and the like of the pipe are also determined experimentally or empirically in consideration of the amount of heat transmitted from the heating unit 8”
along a length of the work volume; Fig. 4 illustrates heater elements 8 and piping 9b along a length of the work volume.
to a pre- determined temperature distribution ; Fig. 1, Page 1 lines 53, “. What is important is that a predetermined temperature gradient is created by the piping.”
Regarding Claim 19 – Chigusa in the rejection of claim 18 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 18.
Chigusa teachers wherein,
the means is to provide an approximately Gaussian temperature distribution along the length of the work volume; FIG.1/2A/2B/3/4, Page 1 lines 37-39, 51-53; Page 2 lines 10-11 “, the interaction between the heating section and the heat insulating section including the temperature control means allows the temperature control of the heat zone in the drawing furnace”, “The piping of the pipe 9b is not limited to that of this embodiment, and various types of piping are possible in consideration of the temperature distribution in the heat zone”, “According to this, the temperature distribution in the heat zone is substantially Gaussian distribution”. Chigusa describes the temperature distribution regarding FIG. 1, but also indicates the set-up and control of FIG. 1 applies to the crucible set-up in FIG. 4 (Page 2 lines 25-26).
Regarding Claim 20 – Chigusa in the rejection of claim 18 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 18.
Chigusa teachers wherein,
the means for controlling the temperature distribution comprises a
plurality of heating means and controller means for controlling the plurality of heating; Fig. 4,
Page 1 lines 37-39, “, the interaction between the heating section and the heat insulating
section including the temperature control means allows the temperature control of the heat
zone in the drawing furnace”. Fig. 4 illustrates two of heating element 8.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH01179738A (as
submitted as NPL date 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”) and in further view of
JP2013051110A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith
and referenced herein) by Masui (herein “Masui”).
Regarding Claim 2 – Chigusa in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
While Chigusa teaches a melting crucible (which on skilled in the art would know is made of an
insulating material) heated by heaters, Chigusa fails to teach wherein,
the one or more heating elements includes a heater winding around the work volume, wherein
a winding density of the heater element is larger near the a center of the work volume and
smaller near the ends of the work volume.
In an analogous endeavor of heater and heater windings, Masui teaches the fabrication of heater
windings where by making the winding density variable the watt density can be made variable and the
heating distribution can be partially controlled ([0005] lines 1-3). FIG. 1 (a) shows a heater wire whose
calorific value (watt density, i.e. = amount of power supplied to an area = amount of heat applied to an
area) can be varied by changing the winding density of the heating wire 3 to a dense portion 3a and a
sparse portion 3b ([0009]), where the winding density of the heater element is larger near the center of
the heater winding than the ends of the heater winding. Further, Masui teaches the wire winding is part
of a product that has a core (element 2) that is made of glass or rubber (insulating materials). 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 use the heater winding of Masui around the insulating crucible of Chigusa one being
motivated by enhancing energy efficiency and lowering costs, as noted by Masui .
([0005] lines 52-53).
Regarding Claim 3 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 2.
Masui further teaches wherein,
Masui teaches the heater winding can be made in a variety of winding density/configurations to achieve the desired watt density along the heater winding. FIG. 1a and 1b provide an example of differing winding density of the heater wire. Further Masui cites a variety of examples if different heat windings and results ([0014]-[0021]. Masui continues to indicate that by changing the winding pitch of the heating wire depending on the heater portion, the watt density can be changed… a heater processed product whose heating distribution can be freely controlled can be obtained” ([0024]), indicating that a heating winding can be formed to target the heating distribution desired, i.e. “freely controlled”. 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 create any desired winding configuration desired, such as a Gaussian winding distribution, from the concept of Masui for the purposes of Chigusa, as one would be motivated to do so to obtain a specific calorific value at a desired position, as noted by Masui ([0013] lines 1-2). 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 4 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1
Chigusa further teaches wherein,
the one or more heating elements distributed along the length of the work volume; Fig. 4
element (s) 8.
Chigusa fails to teach wherein,
the one or more heating elements comprises a plurality of heater windings distributed along the
length of the work volume, each heating element coupled to a respective heater winding.
Masui further teaches a planar heater (aluminum plate) to which the heater wire (which is a winding) is
wired ([0012]). 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 use the concept of attaching the wire to the heater of Masui for
the apparatus of Chigusa, where the heating elements are along the length of the work volume, as one
would be motivated to do so to supply heat efficiently without excess or deficiency and to reduce
thermal load on other members, as noted by Masui ([0013] lines 2-3).
Regarding Claim 5 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 4 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 4.
Chigusa fails to teach wherein,
the controller circuitry is to cause the plurality of heating elements to provide a first
temperature near a first end of the work volume and a second temperature higher than the first
temperatures near a second end of the work volume, wherein the temperature between the
first end and the second end of the work volume is between the first and second temperatures.
Chigusa does teach the controller circuitry is to cause the plurality of heating elements to provide an
approximately Gaussian temperature distribution along a length of the work volume; FIG.1/2A/2B/3/4,
Page 1 lines 37-39, 51-53; Page 2 lines 10-11 “, the interaction between the heating section and the
heat insulating section including the temperature control means allows the temperature control
of the heat zone in the drawing furnace”, “The piping of the pipe 9b is not limited to that of this
embodiment, and various types of piping are possible in consideration of the temperature
distribution in the heat zone”, “According to this, the temperature distribution in the heat zone
is substantially Gaussian distribution” and cites a peak temperature of 330°C in the center of the heater.
Chigusa further describes how the coolant in the piping is controlled to provide a predetermined
temperature distribution in the heat zone of the draw furnace (Page 2 lines 1-4) as well as and the
controller systems (FIG. 3). Hence, Chigusa describes the temperature distribution regarding FIG. 1, but
also indicates the set-up and control of FIG. 1 applies to the crucible set-up in FIG. 4 (Page 2 lines 25-26).
While Chigusa does not teach the temperature distribution of the instant claim, 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 have optimized for the temperature distribution of the instant claim 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 for
the purpose of accommodating different glass materials that might have different viscosity, as noted by
Chigusa (Page 2 lines 22-24). 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.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 6 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 4 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 4.
Chigusa teaches wherein,
the controller circuitry is to cause the plurality of heating elements to provide an approximately
Gaussian temperature distribution along a length of the work volume; FIG.1/2A/2B/3/4, Page 1
lines 37-39, 51-53; Page 2 lines 10-11 “, the interaction between the heating section and the
heat insulating section including the temperature control means allows the temperature control
of the heat zone in the drawing furnace”, “The piping of the pipe 9b is not limited to that of this
embodiment, and various types of piping are possible in consideration of the temperature
distribution in the heat zone”, “According to this, the temperature distribution in the heat zone
is substantially Gaussian distribution”. Chigusa further describes how the coolant in the piping is
controlled and the controller systems are illustrated in FIG. 3. Hence, Chigusa describes the
temperature distribution regarding FIG. 1, but also indicates the set-up and control of FIG. 1
applies to the crucible set-up in FIG. 4 (Page 2 lines 25-26).
Regarding Claim 8 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Chigusa further teaches wherein the system further comprises,
a conductive cooling element to cool the work volume; Fig. 4 Page 1 lines 56-58, Page 2 lines 1-
4“. The flow valve 9c is connected to the above-mentioned pipe 9b, and changes the flow rate of
the refrigerant flowing in the pipe 9b. The change in the flow rate changes the cooling capacity
of the refrigerant, and enables fine temperature control”, “The refrigerant is supplied from the
refrigerant supply means 9d to the pipe 9b via the flow valve 9c. Since the pipe is provided in
the heat insulating material 9a and the flow rate can be controlled by the flow valve 9C, a
predetermined temperature distribution can be formed in the heat zone in the drawing
furnace.”
Regarding Claim 9 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 8 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 8.
Chigusa further teaches wherein,
the cooling element comprises a structure coupled to a first end of the work volume through a
first wire and a second end of the work volume through a second wire; Fig. 4, pipe element 9b,
where and pipe element 9b is on either side of the work volume. To pipe element 9b refrigerant
is supplied (Page 2 lines 1-2). The first pipe 9b on the left and the second pipe 9b on the right
are both coupled along the entire work volume from a first end to a second end.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH01179738A (as
submitted as NPL date 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”) and in further view of
JP2013051110A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith
and referenced herein) by Masui (herein “Masui”) and in further view of WO2008062465A2 by Sahu et.
al. (herein “Sahu”)
Regarding Claim 7 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach,
a plurality of temperatures sensors coupled to the work volume, wherein the controller circuitry
is to control the one or more heating elements based on information from the plurality of
temperature sensors.
In a similar endeavor of a system that is drawing optical fiber with a drawing furnace, Sahu teaches using
a temperature sensing means to control the change in temperature of a preform partially inside the
draw furnace (inside the work volume) (Fig. 2). Fig.2 illustrates a draw furnace with heating elements
104 with a temperature sensing means 113 near surface A (Page 9 lines 31-32, Page 10 lines 4-6).
Further, a PLC 114 is connected to the temperature sensing means and capable of controlling the
preform temperature by controlling and maintaining the power supply to the heating elements 104
(Page 10 lines 7-12). 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 incorporate the temperature sensing means and PLC
controller of Sahu into the apparatus of Chigusa, one being motivated to do so to avoid a change in fiber
tension by controlling the change in temperature of the preform inside the furnace, as noted by Sahu
(Page 6 lines 3-6).
While Sahu does not specifically teach a plurality of temperature sensors, the court held that mere
duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In
re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH01179738A (as
submitted as NPL date 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”) and in further view of
JP2013051110A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith
and referenced herein) by Masui (herein “Masui”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 11, 040,906 by
Konishi et. al. (herein “Konishi”).
Regarding Claim 10 – Chigusa and Masui in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach wherein the system further comprises,
comprising a fiber preform mount and a coupling element to couple the fiber preform mount to
the work volume.
In a similar endeavor of a system that is drawing optical fiber with a drawing furnace, Konishi teaches
a fiber preform mount assembly of a joint that connects the preform seed rod 11d with the dummy rod
13 with pins 14c, where the connecting joint and the seed rod are contained in a cap member 25 (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1 illustrates the preform mount assembly inside cap member 25 passes through an upper chamber
20 which contains sealing element 21 and 22, where elements 20/21/22 together define a coupling
element, which is located on top of the furnace 18 (which includes the work volume of inner tube 15) .
See annotated Fig 1. below:
PNG
media_image1.png
900
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 use the preform mount assembly and coupling element of Konishi in
the apparatus of the combination, as one would have been motivated to do so as to prevent an increase
in space volume in the drawing furnace while drawing of the preform progresses, to suppress fiber
diameter variation, as noted by Konishi (Col 2 lines 48-52).
Regarding Claim 11 – Chigusa, Masui and Konishi in the rejection of claim 10 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 10.
Chiugusa and Masui fail to teach wherein the system further comprises,
a flexible material to seal a space between the preform mount and the coupling element.
Konishi further teaches a glass preform being sealed by the first and second sealing portions (elements
21 and 22 respectively) of chamber 20 and sealing a space between the preform mount and the coupling
element (Col 3 lines 66-67, Col 4 lines 1-2, 6-8, 17-24). See annotated Fig. 1. Further, Konishi cites
“in the second seal portion 22, a lid-shaped seal member may be mounted on the dummy rod, for
example. When contacting the upper end of the upper chamber, the lid-shaped seal member would
remain in the contracting position and functions as a lid closing the upper chamber. The outer
circumference surface of the dummy rod is sealed with the gap of the hole for the dummy rod provided
in the lid-shaped seal member”, (Col 4 lines 25-32). The Examiner understands the lid-shaped member is
described as a large elastic washer that will contract (flex) when the elastic washer comes into contact
with the upper end of the upper chamber 20. See annotated Fig.2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
874
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 lid member of Konishi for the apparatus of the combination as
one would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of enhancing air tightness of the upper
chamber, as noted by Konishi (Col 3 lines 66-67).
Regarding Claim 12 – Chigusa, Masui, and Konishi in the rejection of claim 10 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 10.
Chigusa and Masui fail to teach wherein,
the coupling element comprises a purge port to deliver a gas into the work volume.
Konishi further teaches the coupling element contains two gas ports (one each in element 21 and 22) for
suppling inert gas such as argon into the furnace tube 15 (Col 4 lines 3-5, 8-11). It is known in the art to
provide process gas, typically an inert gas, while drawing optical fiber into the furnace cavity. 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).
Claim 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH01179738A (as
submitted as NPL date 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”) and in further view of
WO2008062465A2 by Sahu et. al. (herein “Sahu”).
Regarding Claim 21 – Chigusa teaches a system comprising,
a plurality of work volumes; Fig. 4 illustrates an optical fiber draw furnace with an internal work volume with a double crucible residing in the work volume.
a plurality of heating elements, each heating element coupled to a respective work volume; Fig. 4, lines 44-45 “ The heating unit 8 is formed of, for example, a carbon heater”. Fig. 4 element 8 illustrates a heater on either side of the work volume.
to provide a desired non-uniform temperature distribution across the plurality of work
volumes; Fig. 1, Page 1 lines 52-55, Page 2 lines 1-4, “…and various types of piping are possible in consideration of the temperature distribution in the heat zone. What is important is that a predetermined temperature gradient is created by the piping…in consideration of the amount of heat transmitted from the heating unit 8”, “The refrigerant is supplied from the refrigerant supply means 9d to the pipe 9b via the flow valve 9c. Since the pipe 9c is provided in the heat insulating material 9a and the flow rate can be controlled by the flow valve 9C, a predetermined temperature distribution can be formed in the heat zone in the drawing furnace.” Fig. 4 illustrates coolant pipe 9b, that along with the heater elements 8, are controlled to provide the temperature gradient along the length of the draw furnace.
While Chigusa does not teach a plurality of work volumes, a plurality of heating elements coupled to a
respective work volume to provide a non-uniform temperature distribution across the plurality of work
volumes, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Chigusa fails to teach,
a plurality of temperature sensors, each temperature sensor coupled to a respective work
volume and controller circuitry to receive information from the temperature sensors and control
the heating elements.
In a similar endeavor of a system that is drawing optical fiber with a drawing furnace, Sahu teaches using
a temperature sensing means to control the change in temperature of a preform partially inside the
draw furnace (inside the work volume) (Fig. 2). Fig.2 illustrates a draw furnace with heating elements
104 with a temperature sensing means 113 near surface A (Page 9 lines 31-32, Page 10 lines 4-6).
Further, a PLC 114 is connected to the temperature sensing means and capable of controlling the
preform temperature by controlling and maintaining the power supply to the heating elements 104
(Page 10 lines 7-12). 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 incorporate the temperature sensing means and PLC
controller of Sahu into the apparatus of Chigusa, one being motivated to do so to avoid a change in fiber
tension by controlling the change in temperature of the preform inside the furnace, as noted by Sahu
(Page 6 lines 3-6). While Sahu does not specifically teach a plurality of temperature sensors coupled to a
respective work volume, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance
unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 24 – Chigusa and Sahu in the rejection of claim 21 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 21.
Chigusa teach a system further comprising,
a cooling element coupled to the work volumes; ; Fig. 4 Page 1 lines 56-58, Page 2 lines 1-
4“. The flow valve 9c is connected to the above-mentioned pipe 9b, and changes the flow rate of
the refrigerant flowing in the pipe 9b. The change in the flow rate changes the cooling capacity
of the refrigerant, and enables fine temperature control”, “The refrigerant is supplied from the
refrigerant supply means 9d to the pipe 9b via the flow valve 9c. Since the pipe is provided in
the heat insulating material 9a and the flow rate can be controlled by the flow valve 9C, a
predetermined temperature distribution can be formed in the heat zone in the drawing
furnace.” While Chigusa does not teach a cooling element coupled to more than one work
volume, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a
new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH01179738A (as
submitted as NPL date 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”) and in further view of
WO2008062465A2 by Sahu et. al. (herein “Sahu”) and in further view of JPH08295525A by Ota et. al.
(herein “Ota”).
Regarding Claim 22 – Chigusa and Sahu in the rejection of claim 21 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 21.
The combination fails to teach a system further comprising,
fiber diameter sensors, wherein the controller circuitry is to further control the heating
elements based on the information received from the fiber diameter sensors.
In a similar endeavor of a system that is drawing optical fiber with a drawing furnace, Ota teaches the
use of a laser type outer diameter measurement instrument 12 is mounted in correspondence with the
number of heaters where the non-circularity of the fiber is measured by measuring the outer diameter
of the optical fiber 11 . Ota cites a means for measuring the non-circularity of the optical fiber, which is
wire drawing from the drawing furnace of the present invention, to reduce as much as possible non-
circularity of fed back to the temperature control of each heating means which is shown in Fig. 2. Ota
further cites that by the change of the measured value is to be converted to a change of power in the
conversion unit 16, by feeding back the outside diameter change to change the power online to adjust
the non-circularity of the base material ([0007]). 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 have used the fiber diameter
sensors of Ota on the apparatus of the combination, one being motivated to do so to compensate for
disturbance of the gas and furnace vibration, as noted by Ota ([0003].
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH01179738A (as
submitted as NPL date 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”) and in further view of
WO2008062465A2 by Sahu et. al. (herein “Sahu”) and in further view of
JP2013051110A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith
and referenced herein) by Masui (herein “Masui”).
Regarding Claim 23 – Chigusa and Sahu in the rejection of claim 21 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 21.
The combination fails to teach wherein the heating elements comprise heater windings.
In an analogous endeavor of heater and heater windings, Masui teaches , Masui teaches the fabrication
of heater windings where by making the winding density variable the watt density can be made variable
and the heating distribution can be partially controlled ([0005] lines 1-3). Masui further teaches a planar
heater (aluminum plate) to which the heater wire (which is a winding) is wired ([0012]). 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 use the concept of attaching the wire to the heater of Masui for the apparatus of Chigusa,
one would be motivated to do so to supply heat efficiently without excess or deficiency and to reduce
thermal load on other members, as noted by Masui ([0013] lines 2-3).
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH01179738A (as
submitted as NPL date 08/21/2025) by Chigusa (herein “Chigusa”) and in further view of
WO2008062465A2 by Sahu et. al. (herein “Sahu”).
Regarding Claim 25 – Chigusa and Sahu in the rejection of claim 21 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 21.
Chigusa teaches wherein,
the desired non-uniform temperature distribution is based on a temperature distribution; FIG.1/2A/2B/3/4, Page 1 lines 51-53; Page 2 lines 10-11 “, “The piping of the pipe 9b is not limited to that of this embodiment, and various types of piping are possible in consideration of the temperature distribution in the heat zone”, “According to this, the temperature distribution in the heat zone is substantially Gaussian distribution”. Chigusa describes the temperature distribution regarding FIG. 1, but also indicates the set-up and control of FIG. 1 applies to the crucible set-up in FIG. 4 (Page 2 lines 25-26).
obtained in a first gravity environment; this is an intended use of the apparatus and does not
limit the structure of the apparatus, See Claim Interpretation.
and the controller circuitry is to control the heating elements; Page 1 lines 37-39, “the interaction between the heating section and the heat insulating section including the temperature control means allows the temperature control of the heat zone in the drawing furnace to be freely performed”.
in a second gravity environment different from the first gravity environment; ; this is an
intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus, See Claim
Interpretation.
Conclusion
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
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741