DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 4/14/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1 and 3-6 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7 , filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that OKADA, ORITA and MAURIN do not teach the new amended limitation of “a point disposed at an inlet of the resin coating device and having a point hole through which the glass fiber is first inserted, the point hole having a constant diameter from the inlet of the resin coating device”. The Examiner agrees that OKADA, and MAURIN do not teach the new amended limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Claypoole et al. (U.S. 4,264,649), hereinafter CLAYPOOLE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (U.S. 10,562,814), hereinafter OKADA, in view of Claypoole et al. (U.S. 4,264,649), hereinafter CLAYPOOLE, Orita et al. (U.S. 6,284,046), hereinafter ORITA, and Maurin (U.S. 6,428,622), hereinafter MAURIN.
Regarding claim 1, OKADA teaches: A resin coating device for coating a surface of a glass fiber with a resin by allowing the glass fiber to pass therethrough (OKADA teaches a resin coating device for coating a bare fiber to pass through [Abstract]. OKADA teaches the fiber can be glass [Col. 1, lines 53-55].), the resin coating device (resin coating device (20C) [Fig. 16]) comprising: . . . ; a die disposed directly below the point and including a first alignment portion, a second alignment portion, and a first die hole through which the glass fiber is inserted (OKADA teaches a die (33, 35, 36) disposed directly below the point and including a first alignment portion, second alignment portion and a first die hole (33B) through which the fiber (16) is inserted [Fig. 16; Col. 28, lines ]); and a first resin supply path connected to the first die hole (OKADA teaches a first resin supply passage (43A) [Fig. 18; Col. 29, line 45]), wherein the first alignment portion . . . includes a first diameter-reduced portion whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction (OKADA shows the first alignment portion includes a first diameter-reduced portion whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction [Figs. 17-18]), . . . , the second alignment portion is disposed below the first alignment portion in a traveling direction of the glass fiber (OKADA teaches the second alignment portion is disposed below the first alignment portion [Figs. 17-18].), and includes a second diameter-reduced portion whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction, and a second land portion disposed directly below the second diameter-reduced portion, connected to the second diameter-reduced portion, and having a constant diameter in the traveling direction (OKADA shows a second alignment portion that includes a second diameter-reduced portion whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction and disposed directly below the second diameter-reduced portion, connected to the second diameter-reduced portion and having a constant diameter in the traveling direction [Figs. 17-18]), and the first diameter-reduced portion, the first land portion, the second diameter-reduced portion, and the second land portion are each a part of the first die hole (OKADA teaches the first diameter-reduced portion, the second diameter-reduced portion and the second land portion are each a part of the first die hole [Fig. 18]), wherein the die further includes an intermediate portion (OKADA teaches the die further includes an intermediate portion (39B) [Fig. 18; Col. 14, lines 17-18]), the intermediate portion has a hole that is between the first alignment portion and the second alignment portion and that is a part of the first die hole (OKADA teaches the intermediate portion has a hole that is between the first alignment portion (33B) and the second alignment portion (35B) [Fig. 18]), . . . .
OKADA is silent as to: a point disposed at an inlet of the resin coating device and having a point hole through which the glass fiber is first inserted, the point hole having a constant diameter from the inlet of the resin coating device. In the same field of endeavor, coating devices, CLAYPOOLE teaches: a point disposed at an inlet of the resin coating device and having a point hole through which the glass fiber is first inserted (CLAYPOOLE teaches a point disposed at an inlet (26) of the resin coating device and having a point hole through which the glass fiber (56) is first inserted [Fig. 2].), the point hole having a constant diameter from the inlet of the resin coating device (CLAYPOOLE shows the point hole having a constant diameter from the inlet [Fig. 2]). CLAYPOOLE teaches a die and a first alignment portion (40) are disposed directly below the point and including a first alignment portion (40) [Fig. 2; Col. 3, lines 23-30]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify OKADA, by having a point disposed at an inlet of the resin coating device and having a point hole through which the fiber is inserted, as suggested by CLAYPOOLE, in order to receiving coating lines [Col. 3, lines 6-20].
OKADA teaches the diameter of the intermediate portion is greater than both the diameters of the alignment portions, which would inherently be greater than the land portions [Figs. 17-18]. The Examiner would like to state that the claims as written do not require the portions to be separate. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create separate portions in the die, since it have been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "Press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
OKADA does not explicitly teach: and a first land portion disposed directly below the first diameter-reduced portion, connected to the first diameter-reduced portion, and having a constant diameter in the traveling direction and the hole in the intermediate portion has a constant diameter in the traveling direction, and the constant diameter of the hold in the intermediate portion is largest among the diameters of other parts of the first die hole. In the same field of endeavor, coating, ORITA teaches: A resin coating device for coating a surface of a glass fiber with a resin by allowing the glass fiber to pass therethrough (ORITA teaches a resin coating device for coating a bare fiber (10) to pass through [Abstract]. ORITA is silent as to the fiber being made of glass; however, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). The recitation of “the glass fiber” is with respect to an article worked upon and not a positively recited element of the coating device. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (glass fiber) by a structure (coating device) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.), the resin coating device (ORITA teaches a resin coating device [Figs. 2-3, 5-7].) comprising: . . . ; a die disposed directly below the point and including a first alignment portion, a second alignment portion, and a first die hole through which the glass fiber is inserted (ORITA teaches a die (1A, 2A, 2B, 2N) disposed directly below the point and including a first alignment portion (1A), second alignment portion (2N) and a first die hole (5) through which the fiber (10) is inserted [Figs. 2-3, 5-7; Col. 4, lines 37-42].); . . . , wherein the second alignment portion is disposed below the first alignment portion in a traveling direction of the glass fiber (ORITA teaches a second alignment portion (2N) is disposed below the first alignment portion (1A) in a traveling direction of the fiber (10) [Figs. 2-3, 5-7].), the first alignment portion includes a first diameter-reduced portion whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction (ORITA teaches the first alignment portion (1A) includes a first diameter-reducing portion (5a) whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction [Figs. 2-3, 5-7; Col. 4, lines 25-31].), and a first land portion disposed directly below the first diameter-reduced portion (ORITA teaches a first land portion (5b) is disposed direction below the first diameter-reduced portion [Figs. 2-3, 5-7; Col. 4, lines 25-31].), connected to the first diameter-reduced portion, and having a constant diameter in the traveling direction (ORITA shows a first land portion (5b) is connected to the first diameter-reducing portion and has a constant diameter in the traveling direction [Figs. 2-3, 5-7].), the second alignment portion includes a second diameter-reduced portion whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction (ORITA teaches a second alignment portion (2N) that includes a second diameter-reduced portion (6Na) whose diameter is reduced downward from an inlet in the traveling direction [Figs. 2-3, 5-7; Col. 5, lines 20-25].), and a second land portion disposed directly below the second diameter-reduced portion (ORITA teaches a second land portion (6Nb) disposed directly below the second diameter-reduced portion [Figs. 2-3, 5-7; Col. 5, lines 20-25].), connected to the second diameter-reduced portion, and having a constant diameter in the traveling direction (ORITA shows the second land portion is connected to the second diameter-reduced portion, and having a constant diameter in the traveling direction [Figs. 2-3, 5-7]), and the first diameter-reduced portion, the first land portion, the second diameter-reduced portion, and the second land portion are each a part of the first die hole (ORITA teaches the first diameter-reduced portion, the second diameter-reduced portion and the second land portion are each a part of the first die hole [Figs. 2-3, 5-7].), wherein the die further includes an intermediate portion (ORITA teaches the die further includes an intermediate portion (2A, 2B, 2BB) [Figs. 2-3, 5-7])., the intermediate portion has a hole that is between the first alignment portion and the second alignment portion and that is a part of the first die hole (ORITA teaches the intermediate portion (2A, 2B, 2BB) has a hole that is between the first alignment portion (1A) and the second alignment portion (2N) [Figs. 2-3, 5-7].), and the hole in the intermediate portion has a constant diameter in the traveling direction (ORITA teaches an intermediate portion (2A, 2B) has a constant diameter in the traveling direction [Figs. 2-3, 5-6].), . . . . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify OKADA and CLAYPOOLE, by a first land below the diameter-reducing portion and having a diameter of the hole of the intermediate portion be constant, as suggested by ORITA, in order to ensure smooth flow of resin [Col. 6, lines 10-11].
OKADA, CLAYPOOLE and ORITA are silent as to: the constant diameter of the hole in the intermediate portion is largest among diameters of other parts of the first die hole. In the same field of endeavor, coating, MAURIN teaches a constant diameter of the hole in the intermediate portion (4) [Figs. 1-2, 4]. MAURIN teaches the diameter is the largest among the other parts (5, 6) of the first die hole where the fiber is (1) [Figs. 1-2, 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify OKADA, CLAYPOOLE and ORITA, by having the constant diameter be largest, as suggested by MAURIN, in order to distribute the resin around the fiber in a uniform manner [Col. 2, lines 53-55].
Regarding claim 3, OKADA teaches: further comprising: a second resin supply path connected to the hole in the intermediate portion (OKADA teaches a second resin supply path (37B) connected to the hold in the intermediate portion [Fig. 17; Col. 31, lines 40-45]).
Regarding claim 4, OKADA teaches: wherein the second resin supply path is connected to an upper part of the intermediate portion (OKADA teaches the second resin supply path (37B) is connected to an upper part of the intermediate portion (35) [Fig. 17]).
Regarding claim 5, ORITA further teaches: wherein the diameter of the first land portion is greater than the diameter of the second land portion (ORITA further teaches the diameter of the first land portion (dm) is greater than the diameter of the second land portion (dn out) [Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 5-15 at Table 1; Col. 6, lines 1-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify OKADA, CLAYPOOLE and MAURIN, by having a diameter of the hole first land portion is greater than the diameter of the second land portion, as suggested by ORITA, in order to enable a uniform coating during high speed drawing [Col. 2, lines 40-43].
Regarding claim 6, OKADA teaches: wherein the die includes a first die having the first die hole (OKADA teaches the die (33, 35) includes a first die (33) having the first die hole (33B) [Fig. 17; Col. 28, lines 35-37]), and a second die disposed directly below the first die and having a second die hole (OKADA teaches a second die (55) disposed directly below the first die and having a second die hole (36B) [Fig. 17; Col. 29, lines 3-5]), and the resin coating device further includes another supply path configured to supply a resin different from the resin to the second die from between the first die and the second die (OKADA teaches another supply path (43C) configured to supply another resin [Fig. 17; Col. 30, lines 34-35]. OKADA teaches the resin is different from the resin to the second die from between the first and the second die [Fig. 18; Col. 36, lines 26-39]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Piffaretti (U.S. 6,537,377A).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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 may 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights