DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai et al (US 2020/0012042 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arai et al teaches a glass microparticulate comprising quartz glass. The quartz glass is taught to comprise fluorine as a dopant (see paragraph 0173). The fluorine-containing silica glass powder taught by Arai et al has a particle size of 50-500 µm, with an embodiment taught having a 200 µm particle size (see paragraph 0047). Because this is the average particle size and the diameter falls within the range of the instant claim, the amount of particles having a size within the 150-300 µm range would be at least 25%. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the Arai et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 3, Arai et al does not teach any metal impurity content in the inventive glass powder. The content is thus necessarily taken to be less than 1000 ppm.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Arai et al teaches an embodiment wherein the average particle size of the glass is 200 µm. This falls well within the range of the instant claim. As such, there is taught by Arai et al an embodiment wherein the majority of glass particles have a size of the average particle size, or close thereto, and as this size is within the instantly claimed range, the further limitation of instant claim 4 is met by the prior art teachings.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukazawa et al (JP 2018177619 A).
Regarding claim 13, Fukazawa et al teaches a fluorine-doped spherical silica glass powder that comprises 1-20 wt% fluorine. Embodiments are taught wherein the fluorine concentration is 8 wt%, 14 wt%, and 16 wt% (see examples 1-4). Each limitation of claim 13 is therefore met by the Fukazawa et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (US 2020/0012042 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Arai et al teaches a glass powder having an average particle size of 200 µm. Arai et al makes no mention of any particles with a size of more than 425 µm and does not specify the content of such particles. However, as the average particle size is taught to be less than half of this larger value, the Arai et al teachings would suggest and render obvious a silica glass particulate wherein these larger particles are absent, and as such the maximum content limitation of claim 5 is met, and said claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Arai et al teaches a glass powder having an average particle size of 200 µm. Arai et al makes no mention of any particles with a size of 75 µm or less and does not specify the content of such particles. However, as the average particle size is taught to be more than twice this larger value, the Arai et al teachings would suggest and render obvious a silica glass particulate wherein these smaller particles are absent, and as such the maximum content limitation of claim 6 is met, and said claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (US 2020/0012042 A1) in view of Bennett et al (US 8488932 B2).
Regarding claim 2, the claim differs from Arai et al as applied above because while Arai et al teaches fluorine doping for index adjustment, it does not quantitatively teach the fluorine concentration. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Arai et al in view of Bennett et al in order to use the fluorine dopant amounts taught therein. Bennett et al teaches that fluorine-doped glasses are used to produce jacket tubes (overtubes), and that the fluorine doping is advantageous for this application because it allows for refractive index adjustment. Bennett et al specifies fluorine doping amounts such as 0.61 wt%, 1.43 wt% 2.04 wt%, 0.45 wt% (see Tables 1A and 1B). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the fluorine concentrations taught by Bennett et al for the Arai et al F-doped powder because the lack of specific teaching in this regard by Arai et al would lead one to look to other teachings for an appropriate fluorine concentration. Bennett et al provides such a teaching, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Arai et al and Bennett et al are each drawn to silica glass particles used in optical fiber manufacture. Each limitation of claim 2 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 7, the claim differs from Arai et al as applied above because Arai et al does not teach that the inventive glass powder is used to form an optical fiber component chosen from those of the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Arai et al in view of Bennett et la in order to use the Arai et al powder to produce an overtube component for an optical fiber. Bennett et al teaches that fluorine-doped glasses are used to produce jacket tubes (overtubes), and that the fluorine doping is advantageous for this application because it allows for refractive index adjustment. This teaching by Bennett et al would provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Arai et al glass powder for producing jacket tubes, because doing so has been shown to lead to an advantageous application for the inventive powder. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Arai et al and Bennett et al are drawn to the same type of F-doped quartz glass. Each limitation of claim 7 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Claims 8-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Hazan et al (US 6715322 B2).
Regarding claim 8, De Hazen et al teaches a process of doping silica particles with fluorine by using SiF4 as a fluorine source during the formation of a fluorine-doped optical fiber cladding tube. The De Hazen et al method includes a step carried out in a range of 500-1000 °C to predeposit excess fluoride on the particle surface, and thereafter a step is carried out to uniformly distribute the fluorine over the particles, said latter step being carried out at 1300-1800 °C along with the sintering step. As the predepositing step at 500-1000 °C is carried out on silicon oxide and in the presence of SiF4 at a temperature meeting the instant claim range, this step would constitute a prefiring step of instant claim 8. The later sintering step is carried out a temperature range that overlaps that of the subsequent firing step of the instant claim It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Each limitation of claim 8 is thus met by the teachings of De Hazen et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, De Hazen et al teaches the predeposit (prefiring) step is carried out at 500-1000 °C. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness, and thus the further limitations of claim 9 are met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, the De Hazen et al predeposit step is carried out a temperature that falls within the annealing range of the instant claim. Thus, the treatment at 500-1000 °C would constitute a prefiring and an annealing step, as a portion of the De Hazen et al treatment can be considered to be prefiring and a portion annealing, there being no requirement of separation in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, De Hazen et al teaches that the inventive predeposit step is carried out by first heating the silica to the treatment temperature, followed by introducing SiF4 at the treatment temperature (see column 7, lines 18-25). As discussed above, this predeposit step is carried out at 500-1000 °C. As such, when choosing temperatures from within this range through routine optimization and experimentation that fall within the ranges of instant claim 11, one of ordinary skill would be performing a method wherein the silica is heated to a temperature within the overlapping range portion, and wherein SiF4 is thereafter introduced at a temperature also falling within the overlapping range portion. As the further limitations of instant claim 11 are met through routine optimization and experimentation with the De Hazen et al temperature ranges, the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, De Hazan et al teaches that the inventive preform is used to form an optical fiber by melting and drawing (see column 6, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 15, De Hazen et la teaches that the inventive method is used to form a fluorine-doped quartz glass cladding tube (see Example 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Hazan et al (US 6715322 B2) in view of Arai et al (US 2020/0012042 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the claim differs from De Hazan et al as applied above because De Hazen et al does not specify the particle size of the F-doped silica powder. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify De Hazen et al in view of Arai et al in order to choosing a silica powder to use from the teachings therein. Arai et al teaches a glass particulate for use in optical fiber manufacturing. Arai et al teaches that appropriate particulates used to form optical fiber preforms have sizes of substantially less than 1 mm (see paragraph 0096 and Table 1). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the particle size limitations taught by Arai et al for the silica powder component of the De Hazen et al method because the lack of specific teaching in this regard by De Hazen et al would lead one to look to other teachings for an appropriate particle size. Arai et al provides such a teaching, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because De Hazen et al and Arai et al are each drawn to silica glass particles used in optical fiber manufacture. Each limitation of claim 12 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Hazan et al (US 6715322 B2) in view of Rabinovich (US 4840653).
Regarding claim 16, De Hazen et al teaches a process of doping silica particles with fluorine during the formation of a fluorine-doped optical fiber cladding tube. The De Hazen et al method includes a step carried out in a range of 500-1000 °C to predeposit excess fluoride on the particle surface, and thereafter a step is carried out to uniformly distribute the fluorine over the particles, said latter step being carried out at 1300-1800 °C along with the sintering step. As the predepositing step at 500-1000 °C is carried out on silicon oxide and in the presence of SiF4 at a temperature meeting the instant claim range, this step would constitute a prefiring step of instant claim 16. The later sintering step is carried out a temperature range that overlaps that of the subsequent firing step of the instant claim It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 16 differs from De Hazan et al as applied above because De Hazen et al teaches that SiF4 is used for the fluorine doping rather than ammonium fluoride. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify De Hazen et al in view of Rabinovich in order to use the ammonium fluoride doping component taught therein with the inventive process. Rabinovich teaches a process of introducing fluorine into a porous high-silica glass substrate, and teaches that the high-silica glass can be used to produced optical fibers. Rabinovich teaches that the material used to introduce the fluorine can be SiF4 or ammonium fluoride (see column 4, lines 55-60). This teaching would show one of ordinary skill in the art that SiF4 and NH4F are equivalent fluorine doping agents, and thus the choice of NH4F instead of SiF4 would be a matter of using an equivalent material to achieve equivalent and expected results. The choice of ammonium fluoride by one of ordinary skill in the art, when consulting the aforementioned prior art documents, would thus be made by such considerations as material cost and availability. The taught equivalents of SiF4 and NH4F by Rabinovich would give one of ordinary skill a reasonable expectation of success in the modification. Each limitation of claim 16 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 17, De Hazan et al teaches that the inventive preform is used to form an optical fiber by melting and drawing (see column 6, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 18, De Hazen et la teaches that the inventive method is used to form a fluorine-doped quartz glass cladding tube (see Example 1).
Regarding claim 19, De Hazen et al teaches a process of doping silica particles with fluorine during the formation of a fluorine-doped optical fiber cladding tube. The De Hazen et al method includes a step carried out in a range of 500-1000 °C to predeposit excess fluoride on the particle surface, and thereafter a step is carried out to uniformly distribute the fluorine over the particles, said latter step being carried out at 1300-1800 °C along with the sintering step. As the predepositing step at 500-1000 °C is carried out on silicon oxide and in the presence of SiF4 at a temperature meeting the instant claim range, this step would constitute a prefiring step of instant claim 19. The De Hazen et al predeposit step is carried out a temperature that falls within the annealing range of the instant claim, and as such, the treatment at 500-1000 °C would constitute a prefiring and an annealing step, as a portion of the De Hazen et al treatment can be considered to be prefiring and a portion annealing, there being no requirement of separation in the instant claim. The later sintering step is carried out a temperature range that overlaps that of the subsequent firing step of the instant claim It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 19 differs from De Hazan et al as applied above because De Hazen et al teaches that SiF4 is used for the fluorine doping rather than a fluorocarbon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify De Hazen et al in view of Rabinovich in order to use the ammonium fluoride doping component taught therein with the inventive process. Rabinovich teaches a process of introducing fluorine into a porous high-silica glass substrate, and teaches that the high-silica glass can be used to produced optical fibers. Rabinovich teaches that the material used to introduce the fluorine can be SiF4 or various fluorocarbons (see column 4, lines 55-60). This teaching would show one of ordinary skill in the art that SiF4 and fluorocarbons such as CF4 are equivalent fluorine doping agents, and thus the choice of a fluorocarbon instead of SiF4 would be a matter of using an equivalent material to achieve equivalent and expected results. The choice of a fluorocarbon by one of ordinary skill in the art, when consulting the aforementioned prior art documents, would thus be made by such considerations as material cost and availability. The taught equivalents of SiF4 and various fluorocarbons by Rabinovich would give one of ordinary skill a reasonable expectation of success in the modification. Each limitation of claim 19 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 20, De Hazen et la teaches that the inventive method is used to form a fluorine-doped quartz glass cladding tube (see Example 1).
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW31 March 2026