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 in the reply filed on Dec. 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical/translation error. Throughout the specification Applicant uses the term “dice” for coating resin to surfaces of the glass fiber. Typically the term used for coating resin to surfaces of the glass fiber is a “die”. Please clarify if the term “dice” should be “die”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. In the claim, Applicant uses the term “dice” for coating resin to surfaces of the glass fiber. Typically the term used for coating resin to surfaces of the glass fiber is a “die”. Please clarify if the term “dice” should be “die”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-7 is/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 claims applying a rotation based on a variable related to an azimuth angle, but fails to define the metes and bounds of the basis or the actual variable related to an azimuth angle in the applying step, which makes the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are also therefore indefinite. While claim 3 defines the variable is a correlation coefficient between a luminance profile at a first time and a luminance profile at a second time, the claim still fails to define sufficiently the metes and the bounds of the basis in the applying step. Claim 4 attempts to define the variable as luminance value of a characteristic peak at a first time and a luminance value of a characteristic peak at a second time, but the claim still fails to sufficiently define the metes and the bounds of the basis in the applying step. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are indefinite.
Claim 5 claims in the wherein statement that the variable is the azimuth angle calculated from a luminance profile of the lateral observation using a regression analysis result based on a multivariate analysis performed on a luminance profile of learning data acquired in advance. It is unclear to the Examiner what is defined by “learning data”, and claim 5 fails to sufficiently define the metes and bounds of the basis in the applying step.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Applicant recites calculating a variable related to an azimuth angle in claim 1, but fails to define the variable related to an azimuth angle. Accordingly, there is undue experimentation to make and use the claimed invention, as it appears the applying a rotation can be based on any variable related to an azimuth angle and there is lack of predictability, since a basis on any variable fails to provide for predictability in the applying step. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and is therefore, also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Additionally, while claim 3 defines the variable is a correlation coefficient between a luminance profile at a first time and a luminance profile at a second time, the claim fails provide a basis for the applying a rotation, as a correlation coefficient fails to provide sufficient details of the correlation of a luminance profile to calculate the correlation coefficient. Accordingly, since no clear luminance profile values or characteristics are defined for calculating, there is undue experimentation and lack of predictability in calculating the correlation coefficient and claim 3 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Additionally, while Claim 4 attempts to define the variable as luminance value of a characteristic peak at a first time and a luminance value of a characteristic peak at a second time, the claim fails to provide sufficient details of the step of calculating of a luminance value of a characteristic peak. Accordingly, since there is no examples or calculating of a luminance value of a characteristic peak, there is undue experimentation and lack of predictability in calculating a luminance value and claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Due to the lack of sufficient details on what defines “learning data” and since there is insufficient detail to define a basis in claim 5, claim 5 requires undue experimentation and provides of lack of predictability and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 1 and also fail to provide any additional limitations that clarify enablement, and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanori et al. (JPS6414126A – hereinafter Hisanori) in view of Cocchini et al. (US 2008/0141723A1 – hereinafter Cocchini).
For the Hisanori reference the Examiner is referencing the attached Machine Translation.
Regarding claim 1, Hisanori (Figs. 1-2 and pgs. 1-2) discloses a method for producing an optical fiber comprising heating and forming a necking part of an optical fiber preform (“preform 12”) by a heating furnace (“drawing furnace 1”). Hisanori fails to specifically state the heating and forming a necking part includes melting and the drawing provides for a glass fiber. However, Cocchini (Fig. 1 and [0047]) discloses a method of producing an optical fiber includes heating a glass preform beyond its softening point and drawing the optical fiber from the preform. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Cocchini, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of Hisanori, the optical fiber is a glass preform and the heating provides for heating and melting a glass optical fiber preform for drawing a glass fiber, as claimed.
Hisanori (Figs. 1-2 and pgs. 1-3) further discloses acquiring a lateral observation image (i.e. image/distorted pattern) by a camera 10 at an observation position. Hisanori discloses the image is transmitted to a control part 11 from camera 10 every moment and a twist angle theta (corresponding to a variable) of optical fiber 13 is computed. Next the control part 11 rotates the optical fiber 13 in order to cancel the twist of the optical fiber 13. Hisanori discloses embodiments were the canceling of the twist is performed by motor 3 (Fig. 1) to rotate zipper 2 (i.e. preform holder) or performed by motor 24 to rotate a take-up device 23. This provides for applying a rotation about a central axis of the glass fiber based on the variable, since the rotation to rotate the preform or the take-up device is along the central axis (See Figs. 1-2).
While Hisanori fails to explicitly state the twist angle theta (i.e. the variable) is related to an azimuth angle about a central axis of the glass fiber, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the calculating of the twist angle of the glass fiber is related to an azimuth angle about a central axis, since there is rotation of the preform or take-up device along the central axis in order to cancel the twist angle.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanori et al. (JPS6414126A – hereinafter Hisanori) in view of Cocchini et al. (US 2008/0141723A1 – hereinafter Cocchini) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinpei et al. (JP2001097732) and Nishina et al. (US 2020/0064549A1 – hereinafter Nishina).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Hisanori (abstract) further discloses strain patterns from the optical fiber are projected by a light source 8 and polarizing plates to be caught by a camera over a period of time and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, this transmittance of patterns over time allows for a control part 11 to compute a twisted angle theta. The transmittance of a strain patterns by a light source provides for a luminance profile acquired at a first time and a luminance profile acquired at a second time after a predetermined time has passed from the first time. Hisanori fails to disclose the variable is a correlation coefficient of a luminance profile at a first time and a luminance profile acquired at a second time. However, Shinpei (Figures, abstract, and pgs. 5-6) teaches an optical fiber drawing process and discloses an image comprising an output waveform 32 including a dimming recess P that allows for estimation of the position. Based on the figure disclosed by Shin, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the position of feature, such as dimming recess P, is related to an azimuth angle about a central axis of the glass fiber. Additionally, Nishina (abstract and [0033]) teaches brightness profile data representing features for each rotation angle of an optical fiber, and teaches using training data to create a prediction model that based on brightness profile features representing features for each rotation angle. Nishina ([0094]) teaches performing machine learning to indicate a correlation relationship between the rotation angle of the fiber and the brightness profile for each rotation angle. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Shinpei and Nishina on uses of images for estimation of positions and using a features of brightness profile to provide for a correspondence relationship for each rotation angle, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Hisanori could be modified such that a correlation coefficient (i.e. correspondence relationship) is calculated based on feature of a luminance profile acquired at a first time and a feature of a luminance profile acquired at a second time provides to provide for the computing of a rotation angle (i.e. twist) of the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Hisanori (abstract) further discloses strain patterns from the optical fiber are projected by a light source 8 and polarizing plates to be caught by a camera over a period of time and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, this transmittance of patterns over time allows for a control part 11 to compute a twisted angle theta. The transmittance of a strain patterns by a light source provides for a luminance profile acquired at a first time and a luminance profile acquired at a second time after a predetermined time has passed from the first time. Hisanori fails to disclose the variable is a luminance value of a characteristic peak acquired at a first time and a luminance value of characteristic peak acquired at a second time. However, Shinpei(Figures, abstract, and pgs. 5-6) teaches an optical fiber drawing process and discloses an image comprising an output waveform 32 including a dimming recess P that allows for estimation of the position. Based on the figure disclosed by Shin, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the position of feature, such as dimming recess P, is related to an azimuth angle about a central axis of the glass fiber. Additionally, Nishina (abstract and [0033]) teaches brightness profile data representing features for each rotation angle of an optical fiber, and teaches using training data to create a prediction model that based on brightness profile features representing features for each rotation angle. Nishina ([0094]) teaches performing machine learning to indicate a correlation relationship between the rotation angle of the fiber and the brightness profile for each rotation angle. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Shinpei and Nishina on uses of images for estimation of positions of features using a features of a brightness profile to estimate rotation, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Hisanori could be modified such that a correlation coefficient (i.e. correspondence relationship) is calculated based on a feature, such as a peak, of a luminance profile acquired at a first time and a feature, such as a peak, of a luminance profile acquired at a second time provides for computing of a rotation angle (i.e. twist) of the optical fiber.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanori et al. (JPS6414126A – hereinafter Hisanori) in view of Cocchini et al. (US 2008/0141723A1 – hereinafter Cocchini) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masahiro et al. (JP08277139A – hereinafter Masahiro).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Hisanori discloses rotating the optical fiber 13 by a take-up device 23, but fails to disclose details of the take-up device. However, Masahiro (Figs. 7-8 and [0063]-[0067]) discloses a method and apparatus for manufacturing an optical fiber having a swing guide roller 46 disposed below a heating furnace for drawing an optical fiber. Masahiro ([0063]) discloses the swing guide roller is controlled by a control device to adjust the rotation direction of the twist applied to the optical fiber. Both Hisanori and Masahiro disclose devices to adjust the rotation direction of the twist applied to the optical fiber below a heating furnace. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method and apparatus of Hisanori, the twist to the optical fiber could be substituted by a swing guide roller, since both the swing guide roller and the take-up device perform the same function.
Regarding claim 7, Hisanori fails to disclose the method further comprising winding the optical fiber onto a bobbin such that an amount of variation in the azimuth angle is 180 degrees or less along an entire length. However, in addition to a swing guide roller for adjusting twist, as discussed in the obviousness rejection of claim 6 above. Hisanori (Fig. 7 and [0032]) discloses the swing guide roller is combined with a take-up bobbin for winding the optical fiber. Additionally, as discussed above, Hisanori provides for canceling the twist in the optical fiber. Accordingly, with the obviousness of the swing roller providing for the canceling of the twist in the optical fiber below the heating furnace in the method of Hisanori in view of Masahiro, as discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method and apparatus of Hisanori in view of Masahiro including winding optical fiber having the twist canceled onto a take-up bobbin. With the twist canceled on the take-up bobbin, in the modified method of Hisanori, this would result in winding the optical fiber onto a bobbin such that an amount of variation in the azimuth angle is 180 degrees or less along an entire length, as claimed.
EXAMINER’S Comments - Claims
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). There are no prior art rejections against claims 2 and 5. Below is discussion of the prior art for claims 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 2, Hisanori (Figs. 1-3 and pg. 1) discloses applying resin by a coating cup (corresponding to a die/dice). Hisanori (Figs. 1-2) further discloses the observation position is between the die/dice and the optical fiber preform. Hisanori illustrates a distance L1 between the observation position and the die/dice and a distance L2 between a center of the heating furnace. Hisanori fails to disclose or fairly suggest the distance L1/L2 <= 0.2.
Regarding claim 5, Hisanori (abstract) further discloses strain patterns from the optical fiber are projected by a light source 8 and polarizing plates to be caught by a camera over a period of time and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, this transmittance of patterns over time allows for a control part 11 to compute a twisted angle theta. The transmittance of a strain patterns by a light source provides for a luminance profile acquired at a first time and a luminance profile acquired at a second time after a predetermined time has passed from the first time. Hisanori fails to disclose the variable is a luminance value of a characteristic peak acquired at a first time and a luminance value of characteristic peak acquired at a second time. However, Shinpei(Figures, abstract, and pgs. 5-6) teaches an optical fiber drawing process and discloses an image comprising an output waveform 32 including a dimming recess P that allows for estimation of the position. Based on the figure disclosed by Shin, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the position of feature, such as dimming recess P, is related to an azimuth angle about a central axis of the glass fiber. Additionally, Nishina (abstract and [0033]) teaches brightness profile data representing features for each rotation angle of an optical fiber, and teaches using training data to create a prediction model that based on brightness profile features representing features for each rotation angle. Nishina ([0094]) teaches performing machine learning to indicate a correlation relationship between the rotation angle of the fiber and the brightness profile for each rotation angle. Therefore, Nishina provides for learning data acquired in advance. However, Hisanori, Shin, and Nishina fail to explicitly state the variable is the azimuth angle calculated from a luminance profile using a regression analysis based on a multivariate analysis.
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