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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on Nov. 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1-4, the Examiner interprets a traveling optical fiber and an optical fiber as the material worked upon by the apparatus.
In claim 3, the Examiner interprets “the furnace” in line 5 as referencing “a predetermined furnace” in lines 3-4.
In claim 3, lines 3-5, Applicant claims a predetermined furnace in configured to language for an immediately-lower roller. This is interpreted as intended use, and therefore, a predetermined furnace and the positioning relative to the furnace is not required in the apparatus claim.
In claim 3, line 17, Applicant claims a predetermined capstan in configured to language for a plurality of guide rollers. This is interpreted as intended use, and therefore, a predetermined capstan is not required in the apparatus claim.
In claim 4, the wherein statement references a predetermined furnace in the configured to language (i.e. intended use language). Accordingly, the Examiner interprets the predetermined furnace is not required in the apparatus claim.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a position adjustment mechanism and an angle adjustment mechanism in claim 1.
In line 11 of claim 1, the claim recites “a position adjustment mechanism configured to adjust, for each of the rotation shafts, a horizontal two-axis position of a horizontal plane including an axial direction”. Despite the absence of the word means, this limitation meets the three-prong test because it uses a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to adjust” and does not include any structure that can perform that function. The specification (Fig. 3 and PGPUB [0084]-[0085]) discloses the position adjustment mechanism, for example, a plurality of adjusting screws or an XY stage.
In line 14 of claim 1, the claim recites “an angle adjustment mechanism configured to adjust an inclination angle of each of the rotation shafts”. Despite the absence of the word means, this limitation meets the three-prong test because it uses a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configure to adjust an inclination angle” and does not include any structure that can perform that function. The specification (Fig. 3 and PGPUB [0084]-[0085]) discloses the angle adjustment mechanism, for example, a plurality of adjusting screws or a gonio stage.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo (JP2021-054687A) in view of Riddett et al. (US 2008/0193090).
Regarding claim 1, Sumitomo (Figures and [0017]) discloses an optical fiber manufacturing apparatus 10 including a guide roller mechanism (“guide roller 18”) having roller 18A and guide roller 18B configured to bring a traveling optical fiber into contact with a predetermined groove in roller 18A to guide the traveling optical fiber.
Sumitomo discloses a plurality of rollers, such as 18A and 18B. For roller 18A, Sumitomo (Figures) discloses a guide roller body having a groove configured to be rotated to guide the traveling optical fiber. While Sumitomo fails to disclose details of roller 18B including a roller body, based on the disclosure of a roller body for roller 18A, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, roller 18B having a roller body. This provides for a plurality of guide roller bodies each of which is configured to be rotated and configured to guide a traveling optical fiber.
Additionally, Sumitomo(Figs. 2, 3 and 4 and [0021]) discloses a support 52, a plate-like base 51 (corresponding to a guide roller rotation shaft fixing mechanism), and an XY stage 60 (corresponding to a position adjustment mechanism) configured to adjust a horizonal two axis position of a horizontal plane including an axial direction and discloses a goniostage 70 (corresponding to an angle adjustment mechanism) configured to adjust an inclination angle of each of the rotation shafts.
Sumitomo fails to disclose the guide roller shaft fixing mechanism (i.e. plate like base 51) configured to support rotation shafts of at least two guide roller bodies, such as roller 18A and the additional guide roller body of roller 18B, and fails to disclose roller 18B including the claimed position adjustment mechanism and angle adjustment mechanism, as claimed. However, Sumitomo ([0020]) discloses the adjustment mechanism (XY stage) provides for finely adjusting the position of roller 18A and the angle adjustment mechanism provides for angle adjustment of roller 18A. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that guide roller 18B could also be improved by adding the capability to include finely adjusting the position of the roller, and it would be obvious that each roller, including roller 18B, having the position adjustment mechanism and angle adjustment mechanism, as roller 18A. Additionally, Riddett (Fig. 7) teaches multiple rollers, such as rollers 103a and a proof testing section 105 having multiple rollers, on the same mounting plate, which is similar to the plate like base 51 disclosed by Sumitomo. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Riddett, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Sumitomo the plurality of roller bodies could be mounted on the same guide roller rotation shaft fixing mechanism (i.e. mounting base plate).
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Sumitomo in view of Riddett provides for the plurality of guide roller bodies mounted on the guide roller shaft fixing mechanism (i.e. same mounting base plate), and a position adjustment mechanism and angle adjustment mechanism for each roller. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, this provides for the guide roller rotation shaft fixing mechanism (i.e. mounting base plate) to include an adjustment reference surface, such as the surface of the mounting base plate, for adjusting the horizontal two-axis position of each of the rotation shafts, and for adjusting the inclination angle of each of the rotation shafts.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo (JP2021-054687A) in view of Riddett et al. (US 2008/0193090) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe (JP2012-224482A).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Sumitomo discloses a plurality of guide roller bodies. Roller 18A of Sumitomo (Fig. 1 and [0017]) provides for an immediately-lower roller configured to be rotated below an oven 11 (corresponding to a predetermined furnace), and configured to guide an optical fiber drawn out from the furnace and traveling along a vertical direction. Modified Roller 18B of Sumitomo (Fig. 1) provides for a suppressing roller configured to be rotated downstream of the immediately-lower roller (“Roller 18A”), and configured to guide the optical fiber guided by the immediately-lower roller, the suppressing roller (“Roller 18B”) located on an opposite side of the immediately-lower roller from the optical fiber guided by the immediately-lower roller. Sumitomo (Fig. 1 and [0019]) discloses a capstan 20 downstream of the suppressing roller.
Sumitomo fails to disclose a twist adjustment roller and a plurality of guide rollers. However, Abe (Fig. 1 and [0018]) discloses a similar optical fiber manufacturing device to Sumitomo including a capstan 16 and guide roller 11, which is similar to guide roller 18A in Sumitomo. Additionally, Abe illustrates 5 additional rollers between guide roller 11 and capstan 16. The additional roller following guide roller 11 is positioned in the same manner as roller 18B in Sumitomo. Based on the additional teachings by Abe, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, additional rollers could be provided between roller 18A of Sumitomo and the capstan of Sumitomo in a drawing apparatus. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, based on the additional teachings by Riddett discussed in claim 1 above, the additional rollers taught by Abe could also be positioned on the same mounting base plate, and based on the additional teachings by Sumitomo above, each of the additional rollers including a position adjustment mechanism and angle adjustment mechanism to provide for adjusting the horizontal two-axis position of each of the rotation shafts, and for adjusting the inclination angle of each of the rotation shaft. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Sumitomo could be modified to provide for additional guide rollers mounted on the same base plate having the claimed position adjustment mechanism and angle adjustment mechanism between guide roller 18A and capstan 16. Accordingly, in addition to the suppressing roller (i.e. 18B), the modified apparatus of Sumitomo in view of Riddett and Abe, includes additional guide rollers prior to the capstan (See Annotated Fig. 1 of Abe below).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the modified apparatus of Sumitomo in view of Riddett and Abe includes a twist adjustment roller configured to be rotated downstream of the suppressing roller (Roller 18B), the twist adjustment roller located on an opposite side of the suppressing roller from the optical fiber guided by the suppressing roller, and a plurality of guide rollers configured to be rotated downstream of the twist adjustment roller, and configured to guide the optical fiber guided by the twist adjustment roller towards a predetermined capstan.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the rejection of claim 3 above, Sumitomo discloses an oven 11 (corresponding to a predetermined furnace) and Abe discloses a heating furnace 2. Sumitomo ([0012]) further discloses a drawing furnace (i.e. oven) 11 for heating and softening a glass preform G. Accordingly, it would be obvious in the modified apparatus of Sumitomo in claim 3, wherein the predetermined furnace is a heating furnace configured to heat and melt a glass base material used for an optical fiber, 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