DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a raw material tank in which raw material is stored and the remaining space is filled with inert gas. Since claim 1 is an apparatus claim and apparatus claims are limited by the structure claimed or structural limitations inferred by functional limitations, this limitation is interpreted as to not requiring the actual storage of organic siloxane raw material or inert gas. Instead, it will be interpreted as a tank that can store any liquid raw material and any gas, including air.
Similarly, claim 4 recites the raw material is octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane. This functional language does not provide further structural limitation to the apparatus and thus is not given patentable weight.
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 1-4 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 recites the limitation "the building" in 2nd to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of their dependency on claim 1, claims 2-4 are also indefinite.
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.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al. (JP 2001072431 machine translation provided) in view of Moriya (2022/0024801). Ogino discloses a porous glass base material manufacturing system comprising a raw material supply apparatus (“gas supply system from a gas generation facility” in 4th passage on page 2) and a porous glass base material manufacturing apparatus comprising a burner (4th passage on page 2). Ogino teaches the raw material supply apparatus supplies a siloxane raw material to the burner for combustion to produce silica fine particles (3rd passage on page 2, [[0017] on page 5). Ogino further teaches the porous glass base material manufacturing apparatus is installed indoors in a building ([0012] “manufacturing factory where the optical fiber preform manufacturing equipment is provided” on page 4). Ogino also teaches the raw material is supplied to the burner from a gas generating equipment via an outdoor pipe, suggesting the raw material supply apparatus is installed either outdoors or in a separate building separate from the building in which the porous glass base material manufacturing apparatus is installed ([0012]). Ogino teaches the sensitivity of the manufacturing process to gas flow fluctuations to the burner, and such fluctuations results in defective optical fiber preforms (top three passages on page 3). Ogino recognizes mass flow controllers supplying vapor/gas to the burners have limited control (3rd passage on page 3). As mentioned, Ogino teaches the raw material supply apparatus comprises a gas generating equipment ([0012]), but fails to offer specifics on the gas generating equipment, such as a tank, piping, pump, or a vaporizer.
Moriya also teaches a porous glass base material manufacturing system comprising a raw material supply apparatus ([0007]-[0015]) and a porous glass base material manufacturing apparatus ([0016]), wherein the porous glass base material manufacturing apparatus is equipped with a burner for receiving and combusting vaporized organic siloxane raw material supplied from the raw material supply apparatus to produce silica fine particles ([0028], [0055], [0065]-[0067]). Moriya also teaches the raw material supply apparatus comprises a raw material tank 10 that can store a liquid glass raw material and have a remaining space of the tank filled with a gas ([0057]-[0058]), a liquid feed pump 30 configured to pump the liquid raw material ([0060]), a circulating piping (42/43) and a branching piping 21 through which the raw material pumped by the pump is passed ([0061]-[0062]), a liquid mass flow controller 50 provided in the branch piping for controlling the flow rate of the liquid raw material passed through the branching piping ([0060]), and a vaporizer 70 provided downstream of the mass flow controller to vaporize the liquid raw material ([0063], [0056], figure). Like Ogino, Moriya also teaches the control provided for by mass flow controllers after vaporization is limited and thus suggests the raw material supply apparatus discussed above to afford better controlled flowrate by supplying the raw glass material in liquid form to a liquid MFC using a pump ([0023], [0037]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a similar raw material supply apparatus comprising a tank, circulating and branch piping, liquid pump, liquid mass flow controller, and vaporizer, to the apparatus of Ogino, so as to provide better control for the raw material flowrate, thereby reducing defects in the glass particle deposits, as taught by Moriya.
Regarding claim 4, Moriya teaches octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane is a known siloxane raw material for producing silica fine particles ([0023]), and Ogino teaches storing raw material for producing silica fine particles ([0017]). Thus, the tank of Ogino and Moriya is capable of storing octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al. (JP 2001072431 machine translation provided) in view of Moriya (2022/0024801) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galante et al. (2006/0010922). Ogino doesn’t specify installing a raw material liquid supply section equipped with the raw material tank and the liquid feed pump in a separate building from a raw material vaporization section equipped with the mass flow controller and the vaporizer. Galante also teaches a porous glass base material manufacturing system comprising a raw material supply apparatus comprising a raw material tank, a vaporizer and a mass flow meter, and a porous glass base material manufacturing apparatus comprising a burner ([0019], [0027]-[0028], [0041]-[0042]). Galante further teaches locating a raw material liquid supply section comprising the raw material tank in a separate place from a raw material vaporization section equipped with the vaporizer and the mass flow meter so as to protect technicians from the raw material ([0013], [0045]). Galante also notes the vaporizer requires a heated environment ([0045]). As Ogino already suggests storing the raw material supply apparatus in a separate building, and Galante teaches further storing the raw material tank in a completely different location from the vaporizer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have installed a raw material liquid supply section equipped with the raw material tank and the liquid feed pump in a separate building from a building installed with a raw material vaporization section equipped with the mass flow controller and the vaporizer, in order to protect technicians working inside the room with the vaporizer, while also providing the different environmental need of the vaporizer, as taught by Galante.
Regarding claim 3, Moriya and Galante teach one set of raw material vaporization section equipped with the raw material tank and liquid feed pump is installed for one porous glass base material manufacturing apparatus equipped with the burner, and as discussed in claim 2, the raw material vaporization section is installed in a separate building.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Feb. 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues a technical reason for combining Moriya with Ogino was not provided. Applicant alleges the Examiner simply concludes one would have readily combined Moriya with Ogino. The Examiner disagrees. The obvious statement provides the reason for combining, which includes “to provide better control for the raw material flowrate, thereby reducing defects in the glass particle deposits, as taught by Moriya”. As discussed in the rejection, Ogino recognizes a sensitivity of the manufacturing process to gas flow fluctuations to the burner, and such fluctuations results in defective optical fiber preforms and that mass flow controllers supplying vapor to the burners have limited control. Like Ogino, Moriya also teaches the control provided for by (gas) mass flow controllers after vaporization is limited and thus suggests the raw material supply apparatus discussed above to afford better controlled flowrate by supplying the raw glass material in liquid form to a liquid MFC using a pump. Moriya elaborates the fluctuations in the liquid raw material is reduced, resulting in reduced fluctuation in a flow rate of the vaporized gas from the burner, and reduced fluctuation in the characteristic of the glass fine particle deposited ([0037]). Thus, the obviousness is provided for by the motivation to help better control the supply of the vaporized raw material to the burners of Ogino to reduce defects in the optical fiber preform, as articulated above. In other words, both Ogino and Moriya recognizes there is limited control in (gas) mass flow controllers and both want to prevent fluctuations of the vaporized raw material supplied to the burner, so as to prevent defects in the optical fiber preform. Since Moriya provides for better flow control with reduced fluctuation by controlling the liquid raw material before it is vaporized, and Ogino is lacking any detail for the gas generating equipment, it would have been obvious to employ the gas generating equipment of Moriya (comprising the liquid raw material tank, piping, liquid MFC, liquid pump, and vaporizer) for generating the vaporized raw material to supply to the burners of Ogino, as the gas generating equipment of Moriya reduces fluctuation in the supply and further helps prevent defects in the preform.
Applicant further argues Ogino and Moriya solves mutually different technical problems, wherein Ogino is concerned with gas MFC control, while Moriya is concerned with liquid MFC control. The Examiner disagrees. While Ogino may be focused on minimizing fluctuation in the gas flow rate of the raw material to the burner and gas MFC (after vaporization), and Moriya is focused on minimizing fluctuation in the liquid raw material (before vaporization), both are relevant for their mutual concern for delivering and controlling the flow rate of the raw material to the burners and preventing defects in the deposition of the optical fiber preform.
Applicant argues replacement of the gas supply system of Ogino with the liquid supply system of Moriya is not merely design choice or matter. The argument is unpersuasive because it was never suggested to replace one with the other. Instead, as stated, Ogino teaches a gas generating equipment located in a separate building for supplying the gas to the porous glass base material manufacturing system and is silent regarding details for the gas generating equipment. Moriya teaches a gas generating equipment that provides for supply of the liquid raw material to a vaporizer that vaporizes the liquid raw material into a gaseous raw material. Since the gas generating equipment of Moriya provides for a gaseous raw material without fluctuations, it would be obvious to use a similar gas generating equipment (of Moriya) for supplying the gaseous raw material to the gas MFC and porous glass base material manufacturing system of Ogino.
Applicant also argues there is no reasonable expectation of success in solving the gas flow fluctuation problem in Ogino. This is not persuasive because Moriya recognizes possible fluctuations in the liquid raw material supply to the vaporizer and Ogino recognizes possible fluctuations in the gas raw material after the vaporizer, and the combine two addresses fluctuations in the raw material supply line from the beginning to the end, from the raw material tank to the burner for deposition. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights