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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has not amended the drawings and specification as requested.
Majority of 112b rejections withdrawn. The introduction of “a long-term BFD” partially fixed the issue but did not incorporate “variation” as requested.
Applicant’s arguments did not address the Kawaguchi reference. Primary reference Okazaki is relied upon to teach the two inert gas volumetric ratio while melting is known to control a generic fiber diameter variation. Enomoto is relied upon as relevant prior art for the same two inert gas volumetric ratio while cooling controls a generic fiber diameter variation. Lee is relied upon as relevant prior art for adjusting the predefined feed speed of the glass preform and the capstan speed drawing the fiber within the instantly claimed range controls a generic fiber diameter variation. Kawaguchi has not been argued. Kawaguchi is relied upon for adjusting the capstan speed based on a short-term fiber diameter variation AND a long-term fiber diameter variation to minimize the generic giber diameter variation.
The arguments presented does not read on the combination of references relied upon for the rejection. There is reasonable expectation of success when the four references relied upon are all directed to minimizing the fiber diameter variation whether it be melting in the volumetric ratio (Okazaki), adjusting the predefined feed speed based on the capstan speed (Lee), cooling in the presence of the predefined volumetric ratio of the two inert gases (Enomoto), and adjustment of drawing conditions such as addition of a swing roller to read on measured short-term and long-term fiber diameter variation (Kawaguchi).
p. 12 of remarks, Applicant argues that Okazaki does not consistently control the variation of the fiber diameter along the entire length of the drawn optical fiber (in KMs). The Applicant is arguing a limitation that is not present in the claims or specification. Furthermore, there is no support for their statement. Table 1 of Okazaki presents fiber diameter variation for melting/drawing in the desired two inert gas volumetric ratio.
p. 12 of remarks, Applicant argues the attenuation is related to the fiber diameter variation. The instant specification has no support for this statement. Rather, the instant specification nominally reports the attenuation without correlating to the fiber diameter variation. Furthermore, attenuation is a property of the product resulting from the examined method. Every reference relied upon draws a fiber that inherently has an attenuation. Indicating a desired property of the product is not sufficient to overcome the rejection that reads on the method steps.
p. 13-14 of remarks, Applicant argues the relevance of Enomoto. Okazaki teaches melting in the two inert gas volumetric ratio reducing fiber diameter variation; while not required, Enomoto teaches cooling in the same two inert gas volumetric ratio reducing fiber diameter variation.
p. 14-15 of remarks, Applicant argues the adjustment of the feed speed/capstan speed of Lee does not consider short term fiber diameter variation and long term fiber diameter variation. The short vs long fiber diameter variation is read on by the Kawaguchi reference. The Kawaguchi reference includes in situ measurement and feedback controller system (Lee also has this) to read and adjust the fiber diameter which is far more thorough in accomplishing the argued desired result than the nominal recitation in the instant claims.
The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. The independent claim requires the inserting/feed speed of the glass preform and adjustment of the feed speed and capstan speed taught by Lee, melting in the two inert gas volumetric ratio (Okazaki), and cooling the fiber (Enomoto) which all are known as general parameters to control fiber diameter variation whereas Kawaguchi recognizes/measures the short term fiber diameter variation and long term fiber diameter variation and adjusts the capstan speed/operation to limit the variation. There is a reasonable expectation of success that the collective prior art reduce diameter variation and are compatible to be used together.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the resolution of the drawings do not permit reading of the text in the figures or the fine details of Fig. 1B, 3. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please amend the specification to fix the units accordingly to “dB/km”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4, 6, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “long-term BFD” and “the long-term BFD variation”. “the long-term BFD variation” lacks antecedent basis. “long-term BFD” should be “a long-term BFD variation”. Dependent claims 4, 6, and 11 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al (US-20160002090-A1) and further in view of Enomoto et al (US-20140226948-A1), Lee et al (US-20040016264-A1), and Kawaguchi et al (EP-3936483-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okazaki teaches a method for drawing a bare optical fiber [0029] from a cylindrical glass preform in a furnace chamber [0031], the method comprising: melting the cylindrical glass preform [0032, 49-50] in presence of a first inert gas and a second inert gas inside the furnace chamber [0067-68] such that the first inert gas and the second inert gas are in a predefined ratio (Table 1, condition 4) wherein the first inert gas is defined by a first atomic number (Helium has an atomic number of 2) and the second inert gas is defined by a second atomic number (Argon has an atomic number of 18) wherein the second atomic number is at least 5 times the first atomic number (2∙5 < 18).
Okazaki teaches the fiber produced from drawing condition 4 yielded a fiber diameter variation of 0.09 μm (Table 1, reading on short-term Bare Fiber Diameter variation). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in that a similar method that corresponds to the claimed fiber diameter variation range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Okazaki does not expressly teach of active cooling of the bare optical fiber; however, passive cooling is implicit because there is no active heating of the fiber after it is drawn. In the same field of endeavor, Enomoto teaches a similar method of drawing optical fiber from a melted glass preform [0031] in the presence of Helium and Argon [0034] for the purpose of cooling the fiber [0035-36] by controlling the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere [0040]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to cool the optical fiber to suppress diameter variation of the produced fiber [0033].
Okazaki teaches 50% Ar and 50% He drawing conditions [0067] without clarifying the 1:1 ratio is volumetric. Similarly, Enomoto teaches a generic concentration of Ar gas in He gas in Fig. 2 and tested in Fig. 5. Though, Enomoto also does not expressly state the ratio is volumetric; Enomoto has tested the range of ratio from the range of 100% He to 50% He and 50% Ar to 100% Ar. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a volumetric ratio as there is only a finite number of ways to incorporate the ratio. 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.
Okazaki teaches of inserting the cylindrical glass preform in the furnace chamber [0048]. Okazaki does not expressly teach of a predefined feed speed for the insertion. In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches of a similar inserting the glass preform step into a furnace chamber [0006, 20] at a predefined feed speed (target speed) [0051] wherein a deviation from a mean value of the predefined feed speed is less than 0.3 millimeter per minute [0051] to maintain the diameter of the optical fiber at a predefined diameter [0055], whereby controlling a diameter variation of the optical fiber [0050] and adjusting the feed speed from a predefined target speed to be less than 0.3 mmpm [0051] wherein the feed speed and the capstan speed are adjusted [0038, 42, 48] to improve uniformity of the fiber diameter [0018, 20, 55]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Okazaki to incorporate the preform feed speed automated process to improve the uniformity of the diameter of the optical fiber [0055].
Okazaki teaches of measuring the fiber diameter for variation and the variation to be less than 0.1 μm (Table 1, [0068]). Okazaki does not expressly teach the fiber diameter variation to be a short-term fiber diameter variation and a long-term fiber diameter variation. In related drawing optical fiber art, Kawaguchi teaches of measuring the diameter of the drawn optical fiber (Fig. 5 [0028]), and determine a short-term fiber diameter variation and a long-term fiber diameter variations (Fig. 6 shows the frequency of the intensity of variations) wherein P1 has a single broader frequency and P2 has a multimode frequency wherein the first mode is technically less frequent (longer time interval than P1) but P2’s second mode overlaps P1’s time interval; thus, a time interval for P2 is less than a time interval for P1. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Okazaki to utilize the diameter variation analysis of Kawaguchi in which a short-term fiber diameter variation and long-term fiber diameter variation is considered to account for the vibrations of the operating fiber drawing system [0037]. "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).
Modified Okazaki incorporates the gas ratio of Enomoto wherein Enomoto teaches the attenuation/transmission loss for drawing fiber in the presence of the first inert gas and second inert gas (Fig. 5, Sample 6) wherein 0.185 dB/km, is less than 0.324 dB(/km). Enomoto teaches that their attenuation is measured at 1550 nm [0057]. Though Enomoto does not expressly teach the attenuation at the specified wavelength, 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. 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).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Okazaki teaches of measuring the fiber diameter for variation (Table 1, [0068]). Okazaki does not expressly teach a capstan that pulls the optical fiber from the cylindrical glass preform. In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches of pulling the optical fiber using a capstan [0037], measuring the diameter of the optical fiber [0020], and adjusting the speed of the capstan based on the measured diameter [0037]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Okazaki with the diameter measuring mean, pulling the fiber using a capstan, and adjusting the capstan speed based on the measured diameter to keep a uniform diameter of the fiber [0006, 37].
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 1, Okazaki teaches of monitoring the pressure of the furnace chamber by adjusting the gas flow rate and the gas exhaust amount [0058], under broadest reasonable interpretation reading on the (total) volume of the first inert gas and the second inert gas is constant.
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 1, Okazaki teaches the fiber produced from drawing condition 4 yielded a fiber diameter variation of 0.09 μm (Table 1, reading on fiber diameter variation from a mean diameter of the optical fiber). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in that a similar method that corresponds to the claimed fiber diameter variation range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-H06211535-A or CN-104628250-A can be substituted as primary reference
JP-3983597-B2 teaches of considering vibration caused by the capstan speed with fundamental vibrations and double vibrations
CN-104973774-B teaches of adjusting drawing speed of the fiber after filtering the measured fiber diameter data for abnormalities
US-5314517-A teaches the prior art of adjusting draw speed to control dimension after comparing operating measurements of said dimension
US-5897681-A teaches helium/argon ratio ranging from 15-95:85-5 and at different proportions between the top and the bottom of the furnace to control fiber diameter
JP-2003171140-A teaches of 0.195 dB/km at 1550 nm with low diameter variation for mixed helium/argon system
JP-5880522-B2 teaches helium/argon ratio wherein argon is at 00, 11, 33, 50, 60% at low pressure reduces diameter variation
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
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights