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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dianov et al. US 20090116809.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Dianov et al. discloses (Abstract and Para [0024]) a bismuth-doped silica-based optical composition. The intended use is not given patentable weight in the composition claim. The reference specifically discloses an amplifying optical fiber operating at a wavelength in the range of 1000-1700 nm comprising an oxide glass core to provide amplification and at least one oxide glass cladding (abstract), wherein the oxide glass core comprises 20 mol % GeO2 (Table on Pg. 13).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 8, Dianov et al. further discloses that a modified chemical vapor deposition method is used to make the optical fiber preform ([0023], [0032],[0034], [0074][ 0076]). The recitation “modified chemical vapor deposition of oxides forming a core” (Par [0074]) is considered to read on depositing the SiO2 to obtain a silica material. The recitation of “a solution of bismuth nitrate…is poured into the tube and held there for a period of 1 to 3 hours” is considered to read on soaking the silica material into an aqueous bismuth solution, as required by the claim. This is because the reference teaches that the solvent in this solution was nitric and water (Para [0075]). Further the reference teaches the interaction of the silica core with the oxygen and vapors of chloride of other elements (Para [0075]) before vitrifying at 1700-2000°C (Para [0076]). See specific example of GeO2 in the Table on Pg. 8 item No. 13.
Regarding claim 7, the reference is silent on the core material being SiO2 soot matrix. However, the reference teaches a silica core which is porous (Para [0035]). The method of making is the same as the claimed method in claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5). Thus the silica soot matrix will be expected to be formed in the product of the reference.
Regarding claim 11, The Dianov et al. reference teaches and embodiment with 20 mol % GeO2 (Table on Pg. 13).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the reference teaches a temperature of 1400-1600°C (Para [0081]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dianov et al. US 20090116809.
Regarding claim 3, The reference teaches a bismuth doped germanosilicate fiber wherein the oxide glass core comprises 20 mol % GeO2 (Table on Pg. 13). This is different from the claimed 19%.
Approaching ranges are considered prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05 I). Additionally, “differences in concentration do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art…” MPEP §2144.05 IIA. The reference teaches a general condition of the ratio of silicon oxide to germanium oxide of 0-100% (See Dianov Para [0027]).
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dianov et al. US 20090116809, in view of Argaw et al. US 20190359517.
Regarding claims 14-20, the Dianov et al. reference does not teach a drawing temperature. The reference only teaches that the silica material can be drawn into fibers Para [0016].
Argaw et al. teaches a method of drawing optical fiber from a heated glass (Abstract). The reference teaches forming the fibers conventionally at a draw temperature of 2000°C at a draw speed of 10m/s(Para [0030]). Due to the high draw temperatures, large draw down ratios, and fast draw speeds, the glass structure of the silica-based optical fibers is far from equilibrium and has a high fictive temperature of greater than 1500° C.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a suitable drawing temperature or speed. The drawing temperature and draw speed directly influence the glass structure and fictive temperature of the glass. Thus making these two values result effective variables which can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 requires “The method of claim 5, wherein the aqueous Bismuth solution is an aqueous solution of BiCl3 with HCl.”
Dianov et al. teaches the method of claim 5 but does not teach or suggest “…wherein the aqueous Bismuth solution is an aqueous solution of BiCl3 with HCl.” Nor would it have been obvious to do so.
Zlenko et al. “Mechanisms of optical losses in Bi:SiO2 glass fibers” studies bismuth-doped silica glass and fibers (abstract). The reference teaches manufacturing using chemical vapor deposition using BiCl3 in acetone for incorporation of bismuth into the porous silica (Pg.#23189 section 2). ]). However there is no teaching or suggestion regarding “…wherein the aqueous Bismuth solution is an aqueous solution of BiCl3 with HCl.” Nor would it have been obvious to do so.
Relevant art
Halder et al. “Fabrication and characterization of bismuth-doped germano-silicate…” teaches bismuth doping of silica-glass optical fibers (Abstract). The reference teaches a method of making using MCVD with GeCl4 and HNO3 for fabricating the bismuth doping (See PG. #1817, first para).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights