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 .
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
Regarding Claim 22, the structural limitation recited is “the first cover covers the first axial end of the core section but does not cover a first axial end of the sleeve, and the second cover covers the second axial end of the core section but does not cover a second axial end of the sleeve”.
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, 4-16 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.
Claim 1 - The term “closer” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “the nosecone being relatively closer to the first cover” and “the handle being relatively closer to the second cover” are indefinite.
Claims 1, 4-16 – the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Below are the limitations of each claim that are indefinite:
Claim 1 – a chlorine concentration of about 0.05wt% of less.
Claim 4 - the maximum alkali dopant concentration in the core section is between about 0.4 wt.% and about 5.0 wt.%
Claim 5 - the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.50 wt.% and about 10 wt.%
Claim 6,10,14,16 - the temperature T is between about 1000 K and about 1925 K.
Claim 7,11 - the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.75 wt.% and about 4 wt.%
Claim 8,12 - the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.78 wt.% and about 4 wt.%
Claim 13,15 – the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 1.56 wt.% and about 4 wt.%
For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands “about” to mean
+/-20% of the corresponding attribute of each of the noted claims.
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 1-4, 17-18, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of PGPUB
20200277219A1 by Khrapko (herein “Khrapko”) and in further view of PGPUB 20050063663A1 by
Anderson et. al. (herein “Anderson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Khrapko teaches:
A method of making a multicore optical fiber preform; [0007], “ The methods can be used to form either a single core cane-based glass preform or a multicore cane-based glass preform”.
the method comprising:
consolidating a preform assembly to form the multicore optical fiber preform; [0010], “ An
embodiment of the disclosure is a method of forming a cane-based preform… and heating …the
preform assembly…to the preform to form the cane-based glass preform.”
the preform assembly comprising:
a plurality of core canes such that each core cane is disposed within an axial hole of a sleeve;
[0007], “ The method utilizes one or more glass cladding sections each having one or more
precision axial holes formed…”, “A cane or canes are then added to the one or more axial holes
to define a cane-cladding assembly.”
and the preform assembly comprising a nosecone and a handle; [0077], Fig. 5B, “the vacuum
conduit 216 is attached to the top end of cap 70 (second cover) using a securing member 220
…and the securing member comprises a glass weld”, “…the vacuum conduit 216 is configured to
mechanically support the preform assembly 150 while allowing preform assembly 150 to be
movable in the z-direction. Here, the vacuum conduit 216 with the securing member 220
correspond to a handle. Fig. 5B illustrates bottom cap 90 (first cover) having a conic
portion 95 and an end portion 94 that is rounded, where together, elements 94 and 95
correspond to a nosecone.
and the nosecone being relatively closer to the first cover than the second cover, and the handle
being relatively closer to the second cover than the first cover; Fig. 5A; the nosecone of
combined elements 94 and 95 are relatively closer to the first cover end cap 90 and the handle
220 is relatively closer to the second cover top cap 70.
a core section; [0111], “…each of the one or more canes comprises a glass core region
surrounded by a glass inner cladding region …”
each core cane comprising,
the core section of each core cane being encased by the sleeve; [0016], “adding one or
more canes to the respective one or more axial holes so that each axial hole includes a cane”.
along a height of the core cane; Fig. 2C, element 50 (cane) inside the cladding element 10 along
the height of the cane.
by a first cover disposed at a first axial end of the core section and a second cover disposed at a
second axial end of the core section.;[0065] , [0071], “Each cane 50 has a glass body 51 that
defines a top end 52, a bottom end 54…The glass body 51 can comprise a core section 51c and
an inner cladding section 51i that immediately surrounds the core section”, “FIG. 4A is a partially
exploded view of an example preform assembly 150 formed using the cane-cladding
assembly 120 of FIG. 2B. The preform assembly 150 includes a top cap 70 (second cover on
second axial end) that interfaces with…the top end 13 of the glass cladding section 10. The
preform assembly 150 also includes the aforementioned bottom cap 90 (first cover on first axial
end) interfaced with the bottom end 15 of the glass cladding section 10. Both the top and
bottom caps 70 and 90 comprise glass…”. Fig. 2A illustrates the cane 50, which contains the
elements 51c (core region) and 51i (inner cladding). All the elements of Fig. 2A are contained in
Fig. 4A , which illustrates the end caps.
Khrapko teaches that a core cane 50 can have any refractive index profile that can be made using known
techniques in the art as needed to achieve desired properties of the resulting optical fiber, where the
cladding 51i that surrounds the cane can comprise one or more undoped of down doped inner cladding
sections [0065]. As one skilled in the art would know doping changes refractive index profile, this
suggests a desired a radially decreasing amount of dopant is possible.
But Khrapko fails to teach,
a core section comprised of a silica glass doped with an alkali dopant such that a
concentration of the alkali dopant decreases radially outward from a centerline of core section
the silica glass of the core section having a maximum alkali dopant concentration between
about 0.10 wt % and about 10 wt%;
In the same field of endeavor as manufacturing fiber preforms for optical fibers, Anderson teaches an
alkali doped rod (core section) that has alkaline metal oxide concentration that decrease radially
outward form the centerline of the core section ([0095], Fig. 17) where Fig. 17 shows the alkali metal
oxide as K2O with the maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod
132 can be processed and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt.
Then, alkali doped glass rod 144 is inserted into optical fiber preform 150 ([0096]).
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 alkali doped glass rod with a radially decreasing alkali concentration of
Anderson in the method of Khrapko, as one would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of
creating a stepped index fiber, which is common in the art, as well as offsetting the migration of the
alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet the wt% K2O
desired in the optical fiber, as noted by Anderson ([0096], lines 23-31).
While Khrapko teaches first and second covers, Khrapko fails to teach,
the first cover and the second cover each comprising silica glass having a chlorine concentration
of about 0.05 wt.% or less.
Anderson further teaches an alkali doped rod with radially decreasing alkali content rod 132 is made
from tube 106, where dopants, including the alkali dopants, are added to tube 106, and cites that all
glass added to be essentially chlorine free with a chlorine content less than 500ppm (.05%wt) to avoid
optical losses due to alkali chloride crystallization ([0090]). 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
wt % Cl of the alkali doped glass rod in Anderson for the wt% Cl of the covers in Khrapko, not only for
the reason above, for also as it is known in the art that low levels of Cl reduce fiber attenuation. 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 2 and 3 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein, the alkali dopant is sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, or a combination
thereof (Claim 2)
wherein,
the alkali dopant is potassium (Claim 3)
Anderson teaches the instant Claims 2 and Claim 3 previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein the maximum alkali dopant concentration in the core section is between about 0.4
wt.% and about 5.0 wt.%.
Anderson teaches and alkali doped glass rod 132 where the alkali metal oxide as K2O with the
maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod 132 can be processed
and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt. to offset the
migration of the alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet
the wt% K2O desired in the optical fiber([0096]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Anderson’s alkali dopant
concentration range of that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Khrapko further teaches wherein,
a diameter of the first axial end is perpendicular to a height of the core section,
and a diameter of the second axial end is perpendicular to the height of the core
section; Fig. 2A, elements 50, 52, 54, 51c and 51i, [0065] lines 1-3, “ FIG. 2A includes a close-up
inset showing an example cane 50. Each cane 50 has a glass body 51 that defines a top end 52,
a bottom end 54…”
Regarding Claim 18 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Khrapko further teaches wherein,
each core cane comprises an inner cladding section disposed radially outward of the core
section; Fig. 2A, elements 50/51c/51i, [0111], “each of the one or more canes
comprises a glass core region surrounded by a glass inner cladding region.”
Regarding Claim 21, Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein radially outer portions of the core section do not comprise the alkali dopant.
Anderson further teaches an alkali doped glass rod with a radially decreasing concentration of
potassium is preferably formed without any significant alkali metal oxide dopant present at the outer
radius and that having a layer on the rod without alkali dopant reduces the propensity for crystallization
at the rod interface if chlorine is present in later processing ([0095], lines 12-20) Fig 17, element 171.
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 was made to use the structure of the alkali doped glass rod of Anderson in
core cane of Khrapko, one being motivated to do so for the reason noted above (reduces the propensity
for crystallization ) at the rod interface if chlorine is present in later processing by Anderson
Regarding Claim 22, Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Claim 22 is considered to be directed to a structural limitation only. While it does not directly impact the
claimed method steps, Khrapko further teaches wherein,
the first cover covers the first axial end of the core section but does not cover a first axial end of
the sleeve, and the second cover covers the second axial end of the core section but does not
cover a second axial end of the sleeve.
See Fig. 4A. The first cover 90 has an outer lip that engages just the perimeter of the cladding sleeve and
not the first axial end of the sleeve and the flat under surface of the second cover 70 engages the outer
lip of the cladding sleeve, and due to the recess in the cladding sleeve surface, does not engage the
second axial end of the sleeve.
Regarding Claim 23 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the core canes, the sleeve, the first cover, and the second cover together form a cane-cladding
assembly; [0007], “Aspects of the methods disclosed herein are directed to forming a cane-
based glass preform… The method utilizes one or more glass cladding sections each having one
or more precision axial holes formed therein…When using multiple glass cladding sections, the
sections are stacked so that the axial holes are aligned. A cane or canes are then added to the
one or more axial holes to define a cane-cladding assembly”. Fig. 5A illustrates the first cover
end cap 90 and the second cover top cap 70 as part of the assembly.
and the method further comprising,
connecting the nosecone to a first end of the cane-cladding assembly; See Fig. 5A where first
cover end cap 90 is connected to, and part of, the assembly.
connecting the handle to a second end of the cane-cladding assembly; ; See Fig. 5A where
second cover end cap 70 is connected to, and part of, the assembly.
and using vacuum pressure to hold the nosecone to the cane-cladding assembly and the handle
to the cane-cladding assembly; [0081], Fig. 5A, “The preform assembly 150 is held together by
applying a vacuum from the vacuum system 210 to the internal cavity 250 via the vacuum
conduit 216 and the axial hole 78 in the top cap 70”, “pressure differential ΔP acts to squeeze
together the bottom cap 90, the stacked cane-cladding assemblies 120 and the top cap 70 of
the preform assembly 150”. Here, the bottom cap 90 is the nosecone and the handle (conduit
216 and securing member 220 combination) is the handle which is attached to second cover
top cap 70.
Claims 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of PGPUB
20200277219A1 by Khrapko (herein “Khrapko”) and in further view of PGPUB 20050144986A1 by
Anderson et. al. (herein “Anderson”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 9,878,940 by Baker et. al.
(herein “Baker”) and in further view of PGPUB 20200017399A1 by Click et. al (herein “Click”).
Regarding Claim 5 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
where the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.50 wt.% and about
10 wt.%;
Anderson teaches and alkali doped glass rod 132 where the alkali metal oxide as K2O with the
maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod 132 can be processed
and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt. to offset the
migration of the alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet
the wt% K2O desired in the optical fiber([0096]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Anderson’s alkali dopant
concentration range of that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
and consolidating the preform assembly comprises exposing the preform assembly to a
temperature T (K) for a time t (sec) such that:
t < tc, and tc=10(1.86x10-10T4-9.69x10-7T3+1.91x10-3T2-1.68T+571.9), wherein tc is
a time (sec) for the glass to crystalize.
In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable for core cane
of a fiber preform, Baker teaches a glass composition (Col 2 lines 61-67, Col 3 lines 1-3) in mol%
converted to wt% below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Baker cites heat treating crystallizable glasses at one or more preselected temperatures and
one or more preselected times to induce crystallization, suggesting a crystallization temperature of
about 575°C to 900°C and holding temperature in this range for ¼-4 hrs. to produce a glass ceramic ([Col
17 lines 36-57). Baker teaches the claim except for use specifically on a core cane rod, and a specific
time not to induce crystallization. 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 was made to use the temperature and time
methods of the crystallizable glass of Baker that induces crystallization to support not inducing
crystallization in the similar glass of the core rod during consolidation of the combination, as material
crystallization applies to any process that involved heat treatment. One would have been motivated to
do so as Baker notes crystallized glass produces crystalline phases, major and minor crystalline phases,
influence on integrity, and opacity (col 18 lines 1-9); all items that are undesired in a fiber optic preform
to be used to fabricate optical fiber.
But Baker fails to teach t < tc, and tc=101.86x10-10T4-9.69x10-7T3+1.91x10-3T2-1.68T+571.9, wherein
tc is the time (sec) for the glass to crystalize, i.e. a time temperature relationship regarding
crystallization. In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable
for core cane of a fiber preform, Click teaches a similar composition of crystallizable glass similar to the
core cane glass, which can include Na2O, K2O, Rb2O or Cs2O ([0044]). Further, Click cites an equation
containing crystallization temperature and crystallization time ([0009]) as follows:
“In a fifth aspect, a method of forming a glass-ceramic article, the method comprises: heating a glass
composition to a nucleation temperature (TN); maintaining the nucleation temperature for a first
predetermined period of time (tN) to produce a nucleated crystallizable glass composition; heating
the nucleated crystallizable glass composition to a crystallization temperature (TC); and maintaining
the crystallization temperature for a second predetermined period of time (tC) to produce the
glass-ceramic article, wherein:
(103−0.260TN+0.000203(TN)2−7.96tN+0.1532(tN)2−0.019TC−0.000008(TC)2−10.03tC+0.00597TN*tN+0.00463
tN*TC+0.01342TC*tC)<0.2.
While Click teaches a relationship between time, temperature and crystallization, Click does not teach
the exact relationship of the claim. I t 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 a different equation for the
time/temperature/crystallization relationship 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 determine an optimum equation for the
purpose of supporting the specific glass composition in use. 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, which depends on Claim 5 – Khrapko, Anderson, Baker and Click in the rejection of
claim 5 above teach all of the limitations of claim 5.
Wherein,
the temperature T is between about 1000 K and about 1925 K;
Note: 1000K=727°C, 1925K=1652°C.
Baker further teaches suggesting a crystallization temperature of about 575°C to 900°C ([Col 17 lines
51-53). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected
the portion of Baker’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7 and 8, which both depend ultimately on Claim 6 - Khrapko, Anderson, Baker and
Click in the rejection of claim 5 above teach all of the limitations of claim 5.
Wherein,
the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.75 wt.% and about 4 wt.%.
the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.78 wt.% wt.% and about 4 wt.%.
Anderson teaches and alkali doped glass rod 132 where the alkali metal oxide as K2O with the
maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod 132 can be processed
and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt. to offset the
migration of the alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet
the wt% K2O desired in the optical fiber([0096]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Anderson’s alkali dopant
concentration range of that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.50 wt.% and about
10 wt.%
Anderson teaches and alkali doped glass rod 132 where the alkali metal oxide as K2O with the
maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod 132 can be processed
and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt. to offset the
migration of the alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet
the wt% K2O desired in the optical fiber([0096]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Anderson’s alkali dopant
concentration range of that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
The combination fails to teach:
and consolidating the preform assembly comprises exposing the preform assembly to a
temperature T (K) for a time t (sec) such that:
t < tc, and tc=10(1.86x10-10T4-9.69x10-7T3+1.91x10-3T2-1.68T+571.9),, wherein tc is a time (sec) for the glass to
crystallize.
In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable for core cane
of a fiber preform, Baker teaches a glass composition within claimed ranges of the instant application
(Col 2 lines 61-67, Col 3 lines 1-3) in mol% converted to wt% below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Baker cites heat treating crystallizable glasses at one or more preselected temperatures and
one or more preselected times to induce crystallization, suggesting a crystallization temperature of
about 575°C to 900°C and holding temperature in this range for ¼-4 hrs. to produce a glass ceramic ([Col
17 lines 36-57). Baker teaches the claim except for use specifically on a core cane rod, and a specific
time not to induce crystallization. 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 was made to use the temperature and time
methods of the crystallizable glass of Baker that induces crystallization to support not inducing
crystallization in the similar glass of the core rod during consolidation of the combination, as material
crystallization applies to any process that involved heat treatment. One would have been motivated to
do so as Baker notes crystallized glass produces crystalline phases, major and minor crystalline phases,
influence on integrity, and opacity (col 18 lines 1-9); all items that are undesired in a fiber optic preform
to be used to fabricate optical fiber.
But Baker fails to teach t < tc, and tc=101.86x10-10T4-9.69x10-7T3+1.91x10-3T2-1.68T+571.9, wherein
tc is the time (sec) for the glass to crystalize, i.e. a time temperature relationship regarding
crystallization. In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable
for core cane of a fiber preform, Click teaches a similar composition of crystallizable glass similar to the
core cane glass, which can include Na2O, K2O, Rb2O or Cs2O ([0044]). Further, Click cites an equation
containing crystallization temperature and crystallization time ([0009]) as follows:
“In a fifth aspect, a method of forming a glass-ceramic article, the method comprises: heating a glass
composition to a nucleation temperature (TN); maintaining the nucleation temperature for a first
predetermined period of time (tN) to produce a nucleated crystallizable glass composition; heating
the nucleated crystallizable glass composition to a crystallization temperature (TC); and maintaining
the crystallization temperature for a second predetermined period of time (tC) to produce the
glass-ceramic article, wherein:
(103−0.260TN+0.000203(TN)2−7.96tN+0.1532(tN)2−0.019TC−0.000008(TC)2−10.03tC+0.00597TN*tN+0.00463
tN*TC+0.01342TC*tC)<0.2.
While Click teaches a relationship between time, temperature and crystallization, Click does not teach
the exact relationship of the claim. I t 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 a different equation for the
time/temperature/crystallization relationship 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 determine an optimum equation for the
purpose of supporting the specific glass composition in use. 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 10, which depends on claim 9 - Khrapko, Anderson, Baker and Click in the rejection
of claim 9 above teach all of the limitations of claim 9.
Wherein,
the temperature T is between about 1000 K and about 1925 K;
Note: 1000K=727°C, 1925K=1652°C.
Baker further teaches suggesting a crystallization temperature of about 575°C to 900°C ([Col 17 lines
51-53). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected
the portion of Baker’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11 and 12 - Khrapko, Anderson, Baker and Click in the rejection of claim 9 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 9.
Wherein,
the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.75 wt.% and about 4 wt.%.
the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 0.78 wt.% wt.% and about 4 wt.%.
Anderson teaches and alkali doped glass rod 132 where the alkali metal oxide as K2O with the
maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod 132 can be processed
and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt. to offset the
migration of the alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet
the wt% K2O desired in the optical fiber([0096]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Anderson’s alkali dopant
concentration range of that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 13 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Wherein,
the maximum alkali dopant concentration is between about 1.56 wt.% and about 4 wt.%,
Anderson teaches and alkali doped glass rod 132 where the alkali metal oxide as K2O with the
maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod 132 can be processed
and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt. to offset the
migration of the alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet
the wt% K2O desired in the optical fiber([0096]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Anderson’s alkali dopant
concentration range of that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
and consolidating the preform assembly comprises exposing the preform assembly to a
temperature T (K) for a time t (sec) such that:
t < tc, and tc=10(1.67x10-10T4-8.68x10-7T3+1.7x10-3T2-1.5T+506), wherein tc a the time (sec) for the glass to
crystallize.
In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable for core cane
of a fiber preform, Baker teaches a glass composition within claimed ranges of the instant application
(Col 2 lines 61-67, Col 3 lines 1-3) in mol% converted to wt% below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Baker cites heat treating crystallizable glasses at one or more preselected temperatures and
one or more preselected times to induce crystallization, suggesting a crystallization temperature of
about 575°C to 900°C and holding temperature in this range for ¼-4 hrs. to produce a glass ceramic ([Col
17 lines 36-57). Baker teaches the claim except for use specifically on a core cane rod, and a specific
time not to induce crystallization. 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 was made to use the temperature and time
methods of the crystallizable glass of Baker that induces crystallization to support not inducing
crystallization in the similar glass of the core rod during consolidation of the combination, as material
crystallization applies to any process that involved heat treatment. One would have been motivated to
do so as Baker notes crystallized glass produces crystalline phases, major and minor crystalline phases,
influence on integrity, and opacity (col 18 lines 1-9); all items that are undesired in a fiber optic preform
to be used to fabricate optical fiber.
But Baker fails to teach t < tc, and tc=101.86x10-10T4-9.69x10-7T3+1.91x10-3T2-1.68T+571.9, wherein
tc is the time (sec) for the glass to crystalize, i.e. a time temperature relationship regarding
crystallization. In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable
for core cane of a fiber preform, Click teaches a similar composition of crystallizable glass similar to the
core cane glass, which can include Na2O, K2O, Rb2O or Cs2O ([0044]). Further, Click cites an equation
containing crystallization temperature and crystallization time ([0009]) as follows:
“In a fifth aspect, a method of forming a glass-ceramic article, the method comprises: heating a glass
composition to a nucleation temperature (TN); maintaining the nucleation temperature for a first
predetermined period of time (tN) to produce a nucleated crystallizable glass composition; heating
the nucleated crystallizable glass composition to a crystallization temperature (TC); and maintaining
the crystallization temperature for a second predetermined period of time (tC) to produce the
glass-ceramic article, wherein:
(103−0.260TN+0.000203(TN)2−7.96tN+0.1532(tN)2−0.019TC−0.000008(TC)2−10.03tC+0.00597TN*tN+0.00463
tN*TC+0.01342TC*tC)<0.2.
While Click teaches a relationship between time, temperature and crystallization, Click does not teach
the exact relationship of the claim. I t 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 a different equation for the
time/temperature/crystallization relationship 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 determine an optimum equation for the
purpose of supporting the specific glass composition in use. 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 14, which depends on claim 13 - Khrapko, Anderson, Baker and Click in the rejection
of claim 13 above teach all of the limitations of claim 13.
Wherein,
the temperature T is between about 1000 K and about 1925 K;
Note: 1000K=727°C, 1925K=1652°C.
Baker further teaches suggesting a crystallization temperature of about 575°C to 900°C ([Col 17 lines
51-53). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected
the portion of Baker’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184
USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding Claim 15 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Wherein,
the maximum alkali concentration is between about 1.56 wt.% and about 4 wt.%,
Anderson teaches and alkali doped glass rod 132 where the alkali metal oxide as K2O with the
maximum alkali dopant concentration of 1.0 wt%. in glass rod 132. Further, rod 132 can be processed
and drawn into a smaller glass rod 144 where the K2O wt. % content is 2%-4% wt. to offset the
migration of the alkali dopant in the alkali doped glass rod during the draw of the optical fiber to meet
the wt% K2O desired in the optical fiber([0096]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Anderson’s alkali dopant
concentration range of that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
and consolidating the preform assembly comprises exposing the preform assembly to a
temperature T (K) for a time t (sec) such that:
t < tc, and tc=10(1.67x10-10T4-8.68x10-7T3+1.7x10-3T2-1.5T+506), wherein tc is a time (sec) for the glass to
crystallize.
In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable for core cane
of a fiber preform, Baker teaches a glass composition within claimed ranges of the instant application
(Col 2 lines 61-67, Col 3 lines 1-3) in mol% converted to wt% below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Baker cites heat treating crystallizable glasses at one or more preselected temperatures and
one or more preselected times to induce crystallization, suggesting a crystallization temperature of
about 575°C to 900°C and holding temperature in this range for ¼-4 hrs. to produce a glass ceramic ([Col
17 lines 36-57). Baker teaches the claim except for use specifically on a core cane rod, and a specific
time not to induce crystallization. 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 was made to use the temperature and time
methods of the crystallizable glass of Baker that induces crystallization to support not inducing
crystallization in the similar glass of the core rod during consolidation of the combination, as material
crystallization applies to any process that involved heat treatment. One would have been motivated to
do so as Baker notes crystallized glass produces crystalline phases, major and minor crystalline phases,
influence on integrity, and opacity (col 18 lines 1-9); all items that are undesired in a fiber optic preform
to be used to fabricate optical fiber.
But Baker fails to teach t < tc, and tc=101.86x10-10T4-9.69x10-7T3+1.91x10-3T2-1.68T+571.9, wherein
tc is the time (sec) for the glass to crystalize, i.e. a time temperature relationship regarding
crystallization. In the similar field of endeavor as controlling crystallization in glass compositions useable
for core cane of a fiber preform, Click teaches a similar composition of crystallizable glass similar to the
core cane glass, which can include Na2O, K2O, Rb2O or Cs2O ([0044]). Further, Click cites an equation
containing crystallization temperature and crystallization time ([0009]) as follows:
“In a fifth aspect, a method of forming a glass-ceramic article, the method comprises: heating a glass
composition to a nucleation temperature (TN); maintaining the nucleation temperature for a first
predetermined period of time (tN) to produce a nucleated crystallizable glass composition; heating
the nucleated crystallizable glass composition to a crystallization temperature (TC); and maintaining
the crystallization temperature for a second predetermined period of time (tC) to produce the
glass-ceramic article, wherein:
(103−0.260TN+0.000203(TN)2−7.96tN+0.1532(tN)2−0.019TC−0.000008(TC)2−10.03tC+0.00597TN*tN+0.00463
tN*TC+0.01342TC*tC)<0.2.
While Click teaches a relationship between time, temperature and crystallization, Click does not teach
the exact relationship of the 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 used a different equation for the
time/temperature/crystallization relationship 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 determine an optimum equation for the
purpose of supporting the specific glass composition in use. 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 16, which depends on claim 15 - Khrapko, Anderson, Baker and Click in the rejection
of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations of claim 15.
Wherein,
the temperature T is between about 1000 K and about 1925 K;
Note: 1000K=727°C, 1925K=1652°C.
Baker further teaches suggesting a crystallization temperature of about 575°C to 900°C ([Col 17 lines
51-53). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected
the portion of Baker’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184
USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of PGPUB
202002772219A1 by Khrapko (herein “Khrapko”) and in further view of and in further view of PGPUB
20050144986A1 by Anderson et. al. (herein “Anderson”) and in further view of WO2020105470A1
(English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by
Matsui et. al. (herein “Matsui”).
Regarding Claim 19, which depends on Claim 18 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1
above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
a relative refractive index of the core section is greater than a relative refractive
index of the inner cladding section.
Khrapko teaches the inner cladding can have any index profile and that the cane 50 can have any index
profile but fails to teach the alkali doped core region relative refractive index is greater than a relative
refractive index of the inner cladding section. In the similar field of endeavor of manufacturing optical
fiber, Matsui teaches a multicore optical fiber manufactured from an optical fiber preform (Page 1 lines
26-32), as one skilled in the art would know the property of index of refraction of segments of a preform
transfer to the fiber when a preform is drawn. Further, Matsui teaches the inner core region with a
region relative refractive index is greater than a relative refractive index of the inner cladding section;
Fig. 1, Page 4 lines 30-32, “The optical fiber 15 is a multi-core optical fiber and has four cores 10 of
radius a1 arranged in a square lattice along the longitudinal direction and a relative refractive index
difference of Δ1 between the cores 10 and the refractive index around the core 10.” The term Δ1 being
positive signifies the relative index of the core is greater than the relative index around the core, around
the core meaning the first cladding 11. 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 was made to have the core with a
greater relative refractive index than the first cladding of Matsui included in the preform of Khrapko to
confine the electric field distribution to the core region to reduce cross-talk of the drawn fibers, as note
by Matsui (Page 2 lines 14-15).
Regarding Claim 20 - Khrapko and Anderson in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Wherein,
a relative refractive index of the core is greater than a relative refractive index of
the sleeve.
Khrapko teaches the inner cladding can have any index profile and that the cane 50 can have any index
profile but fails to teach the alkali doped core region relative refractive index is greater than a relative
refractive index of the sleeve. In the similar field of endeavor of manufacturing optical
fiber, Matsui teaches a multicore optical fiber manufactured from an optical fiber preform (Page 1 lines
26-32), as one skilled in the art would know the property of index of refraction of segments of a preform
transfer to the fiber when a preform is drawn. Further, Matsui teaches the inner core region with a
region relative refractive index is greater than a relative refractive index of the sleeve; Fig. 1 Page 4 Lines
32-34, “The first cladding region 11 has a radius a2 lower than that of the core, and the outer
periphery of the first cladding region 11 has a larger refractive index than the first cladding
region and the relative refractive index difference from the core is Δ2. And a second cladding
region 12 having a refractive index lower than that of the core.” The term Δ2 being positive signifies the
relative index of the core is greater than the relative index around the second cladding (sleeve), around
the core meaning 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 was made to have the core with a greater relative
refractive index than the sleeve of Matsui included in the preform of Khrapko to reduce bending radius
losses as note by Matsui (Page 2 lines 9-12).
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
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights