DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
In claim 1, line 3, Applicant claims “the heating elements comprising a radiation-based energy source”, it is unclear to the Examiner if all or some heating elements are required to have a radiation-based energy source and whether more than one heating element is required in the claim. The Examiner interprets “the heating elements” should be “the one or more heating elements” to clarify the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Vloten (US 4,058,699A – hereinafter Vloten).
Regarding claims 18-19, Vloten (Figs. 4 and 10, Col. 6, line 63 to Col. 7, line 12, and abstract) discloses a system comprising an assembly (“housing 60”) defining a work volume for material processing of an elongate body. Vloten discloses a heating means (“laser 64”) arranged to generate radiant heat in the work volume onto the elongate body. Vloten (Fig. 4) illustrates how the radiant energy of the laser beam is focused, specifically to generate a non-uniform energy distribution in the heating zone along a length of the work volume. Accordingly, the laser of Vloten provides for means for providing a non-uniform temperature distribution along a length of the work volume, the means comprising at least one radiation-based energy source, as claimed, the means comprises a laser, as claimed in claim 19.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Vloten (US 4,058,699A – hereinafter Vloten) as applied to claims 18-19 above, and further in view of Akarapu et al. (US 2017/0240456A1 – hereinafter Akarapu) and Akarapu et al. (US 2022/0098085A1 – hereinafter Pub’085).
Regarding claim 20, Vloten fails to disclose the means comprising a scanning element to direct energy radiated by the at least one radiation-based energy source into the work volume. However, Vloten teaches (Fig. 4 and 10) the laser beam modified by a well-known beam expanding device to provide for the energy distribution of the laser along the length. Additionally, Akarapu ([0008])teaches a method of directing light towards a workpiece, such as an optical fiber, may include beam expanding or actively scanning the beam of light and Pub’085 ([0068]) teaches reheating of optical glass fiber by a laser (i.e. directed light source) and the light can be directed by beam shaping elements or by scanning, such as a scanning mirror. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Akarapu and Pub’085, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the directed light source in the system of Vloten, which provides means for providing a non-uniform temperature distribution including directing the laser by a beam expander, could be alternatively directed by a scanning mirror (corresponding to a scanning element) to direct energy into the work volume, since a beam expander and scanning mirror are known prior art elements for directing a light source. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Vloten in view of Akarapu and Pub’085 provides for the means comprises a scanning element (i.e. scanning mirror) to direct energy radiated by the at least one radiation-based energy source into the work volume.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2009/0260401A1 – hereinafter Shin) in view of Ma et al. (US 2017/0320768A1 – hereinafter Ma) and Smith (US 5,079,433).
Regarding claim 1, Shin (Figs. 3-4 and [0030]-[0032] and [0034]) discloses an apparatus comprising a cylindrical furnace body 110 having walls (corresponding to an assembly) defining a work volume for material processing of an optical fiber preform. Shin discloses one or more heating elements (“130” with two heating means) arranged to generate heat in the work volume. Shin ([0034] and Fig. 4) discloses the two heating means can independently control temperature to heat zones with different temperature illustrates the first zone (130a) having a higher temperature than the second zone (130b). Accordingly, the one or more heating elements provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume.
Shin discloses ([0020]) discloses the heating element is preferably an electric resistance heater, but fails to explicitly disclose the electric resistance heating elements comprising a radiation-based energy source. However, Ma (Fig. 2 and [0031]) teaches heating a preform with a heating element 32 generates radiative heat, typically through electrical resistance which increases the temperature of the furnace. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Shin, the electric resistance heaters comprising a radiation-based energy source, since it is known that electrical resistance heating elements increase the temperature of the furnace through radiative heating.
As discussed above, Shin teaches the two heating means can independently control temperature to provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume, but fails to disclose controller circuitry to control. However, Smith (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 51-67, and Col. 5, lines 3-11) discloses a furnace similar to the furnace of Shin comprising a heating element 12 and temperature control circuit 49 to control the heating element 12. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Smith, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the heating means can be controlled by controller circuitry to control the one or more heating elements to provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume, as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Shin (Figs. 3-4) discloses a cylindrical furnace body 110 having walls (corresponding to an assembly) defining a work volume. Shin (Fig. 3) discloses heating elements 130b,130a. The heating elements 130a,130b correspond to a set of heating elements coupled to the assembly. Accordingly, the modified apparatus of Shin provides for the one or more heating elements comprise a set of heating elements coupled to the assembly.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2009/0260401A1 – hereinafter Shin) in view of Ma et al. (US 2017/0320768A1 – hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 18, Shin (Figs. 3-4 and [0030]-[0032] and [0034]) discloses an apparatus comprising a cylindrical furnace body 110 having walls (corresponding to an assembly) defining a work volume for material processing of an optical fiber preform. Shin discloses one or more heating elements (“130” with two heating means) arranged to generate heat in the work volume. Shin ([0034] and Fig. 4) discloses the two heating means can independently control temperature to heat zones with different temperature illustrates the first zone (130a) having a higher temperature than the second zone (130b). Accordingly, the one or more heating elements provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume.
Shin discloses ([0020]) discloses the heating element is preferably an electric resistance heater, but fails to explicitly disclose the electric resistance heating elements comprising a radiation-based energy source. However, Ma (Fig. 2 and [0031]) teaches heating a preform with a heating element 32 generates radiative heat, typically through electrical resistance which increases the temperature of the furnace. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Shin, the electric resistance heaters comprising a radiation-based energy source, since it is known that electrical resistance heating elements increase the temperature of the furnace through radiative heating.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Vloten (US 4,058,699A – hereinafter Vloten) in view of Jaeger et al. (US 3,865,564) and Adams et al. (US2013/0139551A1 – hereinafter Adams).
Regarding claims 1-2, Vloten (Fig. 10, Col. 6, line 63 to Col. 7, line 12, abstract, Col. 1, lines 33-40) discloses a system for forming fibers comprising an assembly (“housing 60”) defining a work volume for material processing of an elongate body. Vloten discloses a heating element (“laser 64”) arranged to generate radiant heat in the work volume onto the elongate body. The disclosure to generate radiant heat provides for the one or more heating elements, such one or more lasers, as claimed in claim 2, comprising a radiation-based energy source. Vloten (Fig. 4) illustrates how the radiant energy of the laser beam is focused, specifically to generate a non-uniform energy distribution in the heating zone along a length of the work volume. Vloten fails to disclose controller circuitry to control the one or more heating elements to provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume. However, Jaeger (Col. 7, lines 26-29) discloses in laser heating it is known in the art to adjust the power output of the laser to increase or decrease temperature in the blank to be heated. Jaeger (Col. 7, lines 112-15) discloses a system to control the power output of the laser. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Jaeger, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Vloten could include a system to control the output of the laser to provide for the ability to increase or decrease temperature in a material to be heated. Vloten in view of Jaeger fails to disclose details of the system to control, such as the claimed controller circuitry. However, Adams (Fig. 1 and [0024]) teaches it is known in the art to control the laser to generate a beam with a predetermined power profile by a computer or laptop. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Adams, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a computer or laptop (corresponding to controller circuitry) to control the one or more heating elements to provide for a non-uniform heat distribution along the work volume, as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Vloten fails to disclose details of the laser, such as one or more of the lasers comprise one of a semiconductor laser, a solid state laser, a fiber laser, and a gas laser. However, Vloten (Col. 4, line 66 to Col. 5, line 10) discloses the body to be heated in zone 20 for forming fibers and teaches heating amorphous materials including glass. Additionally, Adams (Col. 1, line 64-67) teaches a laser operating in the far-infrared, such as a CO2 (i.e. gas) laser is appropriate for heating glass preforms. Both Vloten and Adams teach heating glass with a laser. Accordingly, based on the additional disclosure by Vloten and Adams, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the one or more lasers as a CO2 gas laser.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Vloten (Fig. 10) illustrates the lasers located outside of the assembly (“housing 60”). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified system of Vloten provides for the claimed radiation-based energy source is separate from the assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Vloten fails to disclose the system further comprising one or more cooling elements arranged to cool at least a portion of the work volume, as claimed. However, Jaeger (Fig. 4 and Col. 4, lines 45-51) in the drawing of an optical fiber using a laser as a source of heat and teaches a short and controllable neck-down region is advantageous in reducing the amount of vaporization, the possibility of phase separation and devitrification. Jaeger teaches a relatively short hot zone enables the fiber to be quenched by providing a cooling gas and lower the refractive index of the glass at the fiber surface. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Jaeger, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Vloten provided with a cooling gas to provide for the capability of drawing and quenching an optical fiber and lowering the refractive index of the glass at the fiber surface. The cooling gas would provide one or more cooling elements arranged to cool at least a portion of the work volume, specifically the portion with the fiber to be quenched.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over an Vloten (US 4,058,699A – hereinafter Vloten) in view of Jaeger et al. (US 3,865,564) and Adams et al. (US2013/0139551A1 – hereinafter Adams) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akarapu et al. (US 2017/0240456A1 – hereinafter Akarapu), and Akarapu et al. (US 2022/0098085A1 – hereinafter Pub’085), and Sai et al. (US 2022/0332628A1 – hereinafter Sai).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, the modified apparatus of Vloten provides for an apparatus comprising a laser as a radiation-based energy source and controller circuitry to control the laser. Vloten fails to disclose the system further comprising a scanning element to direct radiation generated by the radiation-based energy source into the work volume, and wherein the controller circuitry is to control the scanning element. However, Vloten teaches (Fig. 4 and 10) the laser beam modified by a well-known beam expanding device to provide for the energy distribution of the laser along the length. Additionally, Akarapu ([0008])teaches a method of directing light towards a workpiece, such as an optical fiber, may include beam expanding or actively scanning the beam of light, Pub’085 ([0068]) teaches reheating of optical glass fiber by a laser (i.e. directed light source) and the light can be directed by beam shaping elements or by scanning, such as a scanning mirror, and Sai ([0039]) teaches a control system for scanning of the laser. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Akarapu, Pub’085, and Sai, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the directed light source in the modified system of Vloten, which provides for a heating element, such as a laser including being directed by a beam expander and controller circuitry, providing a non-uniform temperature distribution, could have a laser alternatively directed by a scanning mirror (corresponding to a scanning element) to direct energy into the work volume, since a beam expander and scanning mirror are known prior art elements for directing a light source, and controlling the scanning of the laser by controlling the scanning element since a scanning mirror directs the light. Accordingly, the modified apparatus of Vloten in view of Akarapu, Pub’085, and Sai provides for the means comprises a scanning element to direct energy radiated by the at least one radiation-based energy source into the work volume, and to control the scanning element.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above, Pub’085 teaches a scanning element, such as a scanning mirror. Accordingly, it would be obvious the scanning element comprises a scanning optical mirror.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vloten (US 4,058,699A – hereinafter Vloten) in view of Jaeger et al. (US 3,865,564) and Adams et al. (US2013/0139551A1 – hereinafter Adams) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 2011/0085768A1 – hereinafter Nakanishi) and Oh et al. (US 2003/0101774A1 – hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claims 9-11, Vloten in view of Jaeger and Adams fails to disclose a remote sensing unit separate from the assembly coupled to the controller circuitry to provide sensing data to the controller circuitry, as claimed in claim 9, the claimed sensing unit comprises one of a pyrometer, a spectrometer, an imaging sensor, a video camera, and a thermal imaging camera, as claimed in claim 10, and one or more temperature sensors inside the work volume, the temperature sensors coupled to the controller circuitry to provide temperature data to the controller circuitry. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jaeger (Col. 7, lines 26-29) discloses in laser heating it is known in the art to adjust the power output of the laser to increase or decrease temperature in the blank to be heated, and, therefore, obviousness to modify the apparatus of Vloten to provide for a system to control the output of the laser to provide for the ability to increase or decrease temperature in a material to be heated.
Additionally, Nakanishi (Figures, [0058], [0061]and [0074]) teaches a method of heating an optical fiber with a laser. Nakanishi ([0061]) teaches controlling laser beam strength by monitoring the temperature of the outer circumference of the glass filament to obtain a desired temperature. Nakanishi ([0074]) teaches temperature of the optical fiber under drawing can be evaluated by observing the optical fiber under drawing from a plurality of angles with a pyrometer in which infrared light is used. Additionally, Oh (Fig. 4 and [0033]) teaches a laser 400 for heating and a temperature measurer 14 in the vicinity of the fiber for measuring the temperature of the heated fiber and teaches the temperature measurer supplies the measured data to a controller to adjust the strength of the light from the laser. Accordingly, based on the teachings of the prior art of Nakanishi and Oh, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a remote sensing unit, such as a pyrometer/temperature measurer observing the material worked upon during drawing in the modified apparatus of Vloten in order to increase or decrease temperature. Further, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the remote sensing unit (i.e. pyrometer/temperature measurer) is a separate unit from the assembly (“housing 60”) and the remote sensing unit coupled to the controller circuitry of the modified apparatus of Vloten, to provide sensing data (i.e. measured data) to the controller circuitry, as claimed in claim 9, the remote sensing unit is a pyrometer, as claimed in claim 10, and the pyrometer is a temperature sensor inside the work volume (“housing 60”) coupled to the controller circuitry to provide temperature data for temperature control to the controller circuitry, as claimed in claim 11.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vloten (US 4,058,699A – hereinafter Vloten) in view of Jaeger et al. (US 3,865,564) and Adams et al. (US2013/0139551A1 – hereinafter Adams) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bookbinder et al. (US 2019/0101694 – hereinafter Bookbinder).
Regarding claim 12, Vloten (Fig. 10 and Col. 3, lines 43-47) discloses the body to be heated is moved along its axis during the drawing and (Col. 7, lines 3-7) discloses the feed rod 21 is held in a chuck by a suitable load bearing rod 55 to which translation motion is imparted. Therefore, Vloten provides for moving a material through the work volume, but fails to disclose details of the means to mov a material, such as the claimed actuator. However, Bookbinder (Fig. 2) discloses an apparatus with vertical movement of an optical fiber preform and ([0052]) teaches an actuator providing for translational motion of the optical fiber preform. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Bookbinder, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Vloten as further comprising an actuator to provide for the translation motion of the feed rod 21 (i.e. preform).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2007/0022786A1 – hereinafter Foster) and Ma et al. (US 2017/0320768A1 – hereinafter Ma) and Smith (US 5,079,433).
Regarding claim 21, Foster (Fig. 11, [0071], and [0082]) discloses a forming apparatus 400 defining a work volume (“muffle tube 432) comprising a plurality of first heating elements (corresponding to heaters c-g) arranged along the work volume (“muffle tube 432”) and a second heating element (corresponding to heater h) arranged outside of the work volume (i.e. muffle tube 432). Foster discloses in a preferred mode of operation the passage temperature in a first zone (example c) closer to draw furnace 420 at point c’ is controlled to have a passage temperature at its center between 1100 degrees C and 1300 degrees C and while a second zone (example h) further away from the draw the draw furnace at point h’ is controlled to have a passage temperature of between 1400 degrees C and 1500 degrees C and discloses a controller 417 to control the first heating element and the second heating element to provide a non-uniform heat distribution. Foster fails to explicitly state the controller as control circuitry. However, Smith (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 51-67, and Col. 5, lines 3-11) discloses a drawing furnace similar to the drawing apparatus of Foster comprising a heating element 12 and temperature control circuit 49 to control the heating element 12. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Smith, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the controller of Foster as control circuitry to control the first elements and second heating elements to provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume.
Additionally, Foster ([0081]) discloses the one or more heaters as resistance-type heaters, but fails to explicitly state the second heating element provides radiation-based energy. However, Ma (Fig. 2 and [0031]) teaches heating a preform with a heating element 32 generates radiative heat, typically through electrical resistance which increases the temperature of the furnace. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Foster, the resistance heaters, such as the second heating element, comprising a radiation-based energy source, since it is known that resistance heating elements increase the temperature through radiative heating.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2007/0022786A1 – hereinafter Foster) and Ma et al. (US 2017/0320768A1 – hereinafter Ma) and Smith (US 5,079,433) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2003/0101774A1 -hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 24, as discussed above, Foster discloses a second heating element outside the work volume (“muffle 432”), Foster in view of Ma provides for the second heating element to provide radiation-based energy, and Foster in view of Ma and Smith provides for the claimed control circuitry. Foster fails to disclose the system of claim 21 further comprising a sensing unit outside the work volume to sense conditions in the work volume, and wherein the control circuitry is to control the second heating element based on information from the sensing unit. However, Oh (abstract, [0021], [0032] and Figs. 1-4) discloses fiber draw tower 100 comprising a furnace 10 (corresponding to an apparatus) defining a work volume and discloses a main heating source (furnace 10) to heat the preform and a stationary auxiliary heating source (“heat means 12”) below the main heating source to locally heat the drawn optical fiber. Oh discloses the reheating of the drawn optical fiber removes residual stresses from the optical fiber. Oh discloses (Fig. 1 and [0021]) downstream of heating means 12, a temperature measurer 14 that measures the temperature of the heated optical fiber. Oh ([0027]) teaches the temperature measurer adjusts the heating means, such as torches 121, 122, and 123 and supplies the measured data to a controller (not shown). Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Oh, that a temperature measurer downstream can be applied to an upstream heating element, to adjust temperature, of the heated material, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, additional temperature control could be provided by a sensing unit outside the work volume to sense conditions material worked upon in the work volume and also control the second heating element based on information from the sensing unit.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2003/0101774A1 -hereinafter Oh) in view of Shin et al. (US 2009/0260401A1 – hereinafter Shin), Smith (US 5,079,433), and Bookbinder et al. (US 2017/0073265A1 – hereinafter Bookbinder).
Regarding claim 21, Oh (abstract, [0021], [0032] and Figs. 1 and 3) discloses fiber draw tower 100 comprising a furnace 10 (corresponding to an apparatus) defining a work volume and discloses a main heating source (furnace 10) to heat the preform and a stationary auxiliary heating source below the main heating source to locally heat the drawn optical fiber. Oh discloses the reheating of the drawn optical fiber removes residual stresses from the optical fiber. Oh discloses a second heating element outside of furnace 10, such as a laser (300, 301, 302) to provide radiation-based energy, for the reheating, and discloses ([0030] and [0034]) a temperature measurer 14 that measures the temperature of the heated optical fiber and supplies the measured data to a controller (not shown), thereby adjusting the strength of the light emitted from lasers 300, 301, 302
Oh fails to discloses a plurality of heating elements arranged along the work volume. However, Shin (Figs. 3-4 and [0030]-[0032] and [0034]) discloses an apparatus comprising a cylindrical furnace body 110 having walls (corresponding to an assembly) defining a work volume for material processing of an optical fiber preform. Shin discloses one or more heating elements (“130” with two heating means) arranged to generate heat in the work volume and arranged along the furnace (i.e. work volume). Shin ([0034] and Fig. 4) discloses the two heating means can independently control temperature to heat zones with different temperature and illustrates the first zone (130a) having a higher temperature than the second zone (130b) and ([0032]) teaches the first zone heating to temperatures ranging from 1800 to 2300 degrees C to form the neck-down region for drawing of fiber from the preform and temperature T2 ranging from 1500 to 1800 degrees C as a fire polishing effect on the preform to remove foreign matter. Both Oh and Shin teach a neck-down region during drawing of an optical fiber. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Shin, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Oh comprising a plurality of first heating elements arranged along the work volume to provide for a means of removing foreign matter (i.e. fire polishing effect) and to provide for the temperature required to form the neck-down region for drawing of the fiber.
Oh fails to explicitly state control circuitry to control the first heating elements and the second heating element to provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of a work volume. However, Smith (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 51-67, and Col. 5, lines 3-11) discloses a drawing furnace similar to the drawing apparatus of Oh comprising a heating element 12 and temperature control circuit 49 to control the heating element 12. Additionally, as stated in the above, Shin teaches neck-down temperatures ranging from 1800 to 2300 degrees C and Oh teaches reheating of the optical fiber with lasers, and Bookbinder ([0084]) teaches reheating fibers in a stage providing process temperatures above 1000 degrees C to extend the time the fiber is exposed to temperatures between 1000 and 1700 degrees C, since it has been taught by Bookbinder ([0055]) temperatures ranging from 1200 to 1700 degrees C reduce the fictive temperature of the fiber since these temperatures facilitate relaxation. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Smith and Bookbinder, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Oh to provide for control circuitry to control the first heating elements and the second heating element to provide a non-uniform temperature heat distribution along a length of the work volume in order to facilitate temperatures that include fire polishing of the preform to remove foreign matter, neck-down temperatures for drawing, and relaxation of the drawn fiber. This provides for control circuitry to control the first heating elements and the second element to provide a non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume, as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-19 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 18/292,102 (reference application) in view of Vloten (US 4,058,699A – hereinafter Vloten).
Claim 1 of the reference application claims a work volume and one or more heating elements providing a pre-determined non-uniform heat distribution along a length of the work volume (corresponding to the means for providing a non-uniform temperature distribution along a length of the work volume. Claim 1 fails to claim an assembly defining a work volume and the means comprising at least one radiation-based energy source. However, Vloten (Figs. 4 and 10, Col. 6, line 63 to Col. 7, line 12, and abstract) discloses a system comprising an assembly (“housing 60”) defining a work volume for material processing of an elongate body. Vloten discloses a heating means (“laser 64”) arranged to generate radiant heat in the work volume onto the elongate body. Vloten (Fig. 4) illustrates how the radiant energy of the laser beam is focused, specifically to generate a non-uniform energy distribution in the heating zone along a length of the work volume. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Vloten that a housing (i.e. assembly) can define a work volume for material processing and a heating element, such as a laser (corresponding to at least one radiation-based energy source) can provide a non-uniform temperature distribution along a length of the work volume, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that an assembly can define a work volume and a heating element, such as a laser, as a radiation-based energy source for the claimed non-uniform temperature distribution, as claimed in claims 18 and 19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 and 25 is/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.
Regarding claims 22-23, Akarapu ([0008])teaches a method of directing light towards a workpiece, such as an optical fiber, may include beam expanding or actively scanning the beam of light and Pub’085 ([0068]) teaches reheating of optical glass fiber by a laser (i.e. directed light source) and the light can be directed by beam shaping elements or by scanning, such as a scanning mirror. However, the apparatus of Oh provides for a second heating element outside the work volume (lasers 300-302), but directing heat energy from the radiation-based heating element outside of the work volume (corresponding to furnace 10). Therefore, the prior art references fail to teach the apparatus of claim 21 further comprising a scanning element to direct energy from the radiation-based heating element to a point within the work volume.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the claimed system of claim 21 further comprising cooling elements proximate to the work volume, the control circuitry to control the cooling elements and the heating elements to provide the non-uniform heat distribution along the length of the work volume, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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 at 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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741