DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov et al. (2011/0289980) in view of Guigné et al. (5,500,493). Filippov teaches a method for producing an optical fiber comprising drawing an optical fiber in a draw tower, and trapping the optical fiber along a vertical axis that is parallel with the draw tower axis (abstract, [0024], [0026], figure 1). Filippov teaches trapping the optical fiber along a vertical axis by arranging a non-contact centering device in the vicinity of the optical fiber. Filippov teaches the centering device centers the optical fiber in order to stabilize the fiber as it passes through the exit orifice of the treatment device and ensure the optical fiber does not contact the walls of the exit orifice 26 ([0026], [0035]). Filippov specifies the exit orifice has diameter in the range of 0.5 mm to 5mm ([0027]). Accordingly, Filippov teaches the movement of the optical fiber is constrained within 1 mm from the vertical axis, especially in the case where the orifice diameter is 1 mm or less ([0036]). Filippov further teaches coating the optical fiber to generate a coated optical fiber ([0024]). As can be seen in figure 1, the optical fiber is subsequently passed through a coating unit 60 after being centered, and since Filippov teaches the optical fiber is substantially centered ([0035]-[0036]), then it would be expected that the coated optical fiber would not have any coating ovality, or at the very least have a coating ovality of less than 4%. Filippov teaches the centering device applies a forced fluid on the optical fiber to provide contactless centering. More specifically, Filippov teaches placing at least two centering device in opposing positions to apply opposing pressure on opposite sides of the fiber ([0032]). However, Filippov doesn’t specify using acoustic waves. Guigné teaches using acoustic energy to position objects by generating an acoustic radiation pressure by one or more acoustic waves near the object (col. 1 lines 5-17, 45-54, col. 6 lines 43-49, 57-61, 66-67, col. 7 lines 1-25) and exemplifies applying acoustic waves to a glass object (col. 4 lines 1-12). Guigné teaches applying acoustic waves to position this glass object provides for no contact with the glass, thereby preventing contamination of the glass, making it suitable for the production of optical fibers. Like Filippov, Guigné also teaches placing acoustic wave transducers in opposing positions to apply opposing pressures on the opposite sides of the glass object, so as to maintain a horizontal position of the glass object (col. 6 lines 55-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried acoustic waves as an alternative pressure means for centering the optical fiber of Filippov as Guigné teaches it is a well-known means that predictably provides for contactless positioning of glass objects with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, Filippov teaches trapping the fiber for at least 3 mm vertical length of the optical fiber in the draw tower, such as 0.5cm to 2 cm ([0034]), and with the application of acoustic waves, it would be reasonable to have similarly apply the acoustic waves so that the fiber is trapped for at least 3 mm vertical length of the optical fiber in the draw tower.
Regarding claim 4, Guigné further teaches it is known in the conventional art to use one or more acoustic standing waves patterns to provide acoustic pressure for positioning an object (col. 1 lines 1-28). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the well-known means for producing the acoustic pressure, such as acoustic standing waves, as taught by Guigné. Filippov teaches arranging a centering device on one side of the optical fiber, and a second one on an opposite side of the optical fiber (fig 2, [0033]). In applying the acoustic standing waves to in a similar arrangement, the centering device would provide a first acoustic wave in a first direction and a second wave in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction to generate a plurality of standing waves, wherein the plurality of standing waves generates acoustic radiation pressure for trapping the optical fiber in a central position along the vertical axis.
Regarding claim 6, Filippov teaches the optical fiber has a diameter of 125 µm ([0036]), which is less than 150µm.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov et al. (2011/0289980) in view of Guigné et al. (5,500,493) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Groh et al. (2020/0283329). Filippov teaches the optical fiber is drawn from a glass optical fiber preform ([0020], but doesn’t specify the material or density of the material. Groh teaches a method for producing an optical fiber preform for drawing into optical fiber ([0039]), the method comprising forming a porous preform and consolidating the preform into a transparent or vitrified glass body suitable for use in an optical fiber draw process ([0043]). Groh further teaches the transparent consolidated preform consists of silica or doped silica with a bulk density in the range of 2.05-2.20 g/cm3 ([0043]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.19-2.20 g/cc. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected a similar density of 2.05-2.20 g/cm3, or even 2.19-2.20g/cc, for the optical fiber preform of Filippov as Groh teaches they provide for suitable optical fiber preforms for drawing into optical fiber with predictable success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Filippov uses high-pressure fluid to provide a centering force, which can have impurities and Guigné teaches levitating a large diameter object against gravity and fails to teaches the claimed method. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of Filippov and Guigné that teaches the claimed method.
Furthermore, applicant argues the acoustic beam of Guigné can not be applied to a small diameter optical fiber, but fails to point to evidence to support the argument. While Guigné exemplifies using large acoustic forces for positioning a large diameter glass sphere, Guigné teaches positioning objects using acoustic waves is traditionally performed on much smaller objects (see background). Also, one skilled in the art would take from Guigné the technique of using acoustic waves to position glass optical fiber, and not the same exact acoustic levitation apparatus of Guigné. Thus, one skilled in the art would apply the appropriate acoustic radiation pressure on the optical fiber.
Conclusion
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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741