DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 03-10-2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-12 and 14 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “an outer fiber diameter of the body of the elongated intermediate PCF is 200 µm or less”. Claim 1 recites that “a length of PCF extending from a body of the intermediate PCF” is drawn, and the specification at ¶ [00095] recites that “In its final form, the outer diameter of the HC-PCF may be reduced to e.g., between 100 µm - 200 µm.” The specification does not provide support for the body of the intermediate PCF, from which the length is drawn, having a diameter of 200 µm or less.
Claim 11 now recites “producing a plurality of PCFs from the intermediate PCF, wherein each PCF is produced by a repetition of a plurality of repetitions of: drawing…and cutting”. The specification does not support repeating a plurality of repetitions of drawing and cutting to produce each fiber. Each PCF is disclosed as requiring a single drawing and cutting. The claim will be interpreted as each PCF being produced by a single drawing and cutting, wherein the drawing and cutting are repeated in order to produce a plurality of PCFs.
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 1-3, 5-12, 14, and 16-21 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 at least one dimension of the length" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one dimension of the body of the intermediate PCF" in lies 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least one dimension of the intermediate PCF” in lines 5-6 and “a body of the intermediate PCF” in line 7, but it is not clear if “at least one dimension of the body” is the same as “at least one dimension of the intermediate PCF”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one dimension of the length" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one dimension of the body of the intermediate PCF" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa ‘023 (JP 2005-250023 A – English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Bazinet ’241 (US 3,037,241) and Sandoghchi ‘708 (US 2023/0011708 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa ‘023 teaches a method of producing PCFs (¶ [0001]) comprising:
obtaining an intermediate PCF (“preform”, ¶ [0015]; “PCF base material 13” ¶ [0024]-[0025])
elongating the intermediate PCF so as to controllably reduce at least one dimension of the intermediate PCF (¶ [0024]-[0038])
the elongating comprises drawing a length of PCF extending from a body of the intermediate PCF with at least one dimension of the length reduced compared to at least one dimension of the body of the intermediate PCF, and cutting the length from the intermediate PCF when drawn (¶ [0024]-[0038]).
Nakazawa ‘023 does not explicitly describe repetitions of drawing a length and cutting the length. In analogous art of drawing optical fibers, Bazinet ‘241 suggests elongating a preform so as to controllably reduce at least one dimension of the preform, wherein the elongating comprises repetitions of drawing a length of fiber extending from a body of the preform with at least one dimension of the length reduced compared to a dimension of the body of the preform, and cutting the length from the preform when drawn for the benefit of continuously producing fibers of a desired length (column 3, lines 31-37; column 6, lines 10-15; column 7, lines 51-72; column 10, lines 13-32). Bazinet ‘241 suggests that an alternative manner of drawing and collecting fiber is to wind onto a drum (column 10, lines 33-62), similar to Nakazawa ‘023. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023 by making the elongating comprise repetitions of drawing a length and cutting a length as an alternative manner of drawing and collecting optical fibers, and for the benefit of continuously producing fibers of a desired length, as suggested by Bazinet ‘241.
Nakazawa ‘023 is silent regarding an initial outer fiber diameter of the intermediate PCF. In analogous art of drawing glass fibers, Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests obtaining an intermediate fiber that is then elongated and drawn into a final fiber (“canes”, ¶ [0031]). Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests that such a process can be used with a variety of internal fiber microstructures, including PCFs (¶ [0038]-[0039], [0090]; Fig. 3), and with initial outer fiber diameters of the intermediate fiber in a range from 100 µm to 20 mm (¶ [0091]). It has been held that where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranged disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023 by selecting an initial outer fiber diameter in the range suggested by Sandoghchi ‘708 as known diameters for intermediate fibers for drawing into final fibers, wherein the range suggested by Sandoghchi ‘708 overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa ‘023 is silent regarding the obtaining the intermediate PCF comprising producing the intermediate PCF from a cane using a fiber drawing process. Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests and intermediate fiber as described above, and further obtaining the intermediate fiber comprising producing the intermediate fiber from a cane using a drawing process (¶ [0031]-[0035]) for the benefit of producing clean end surfaces of the intermediate fiber (¶ [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023 by producing the intermediate PCF from a can using a fiber drawing process for the benefit of producing clean end surfaces of the intermediate PCF, as suggested by Sandoghchi ‘708.
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa ‘023 and Sandoghchi ‘708 are silent regarding a length of the elongated intermediate PCF prior to the cutting of a respective repetition. However, the elongated intermediate PCF would necessarily have some size, including length. It has been held that a mere change in size of a component is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Also, Bazinet ‘241 suggests that the length prior to the cutting may be limited by the arrangement of the drawing apparatus (column 10, lines 19-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nakazawa ‘023, Bazinet ‘241, and Sandoghchi ‘708 by selecting a size, including length of the elongated intermediate PCF, to make the intermediate PCF of a workable size for drawing and to achieve a desired size of PCF.
Regarding claim 5, Nakazawa ‘023 teaches drawing a length as described above, but is silent regarding a length of each individually drawn PCF prior to the cutting of a respective repetition. However, each PCF would necessarily have some length, and it has been held that a mere change in size of a component is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Also, Bazinet ‘241 suggests that the length prior to the cutting may be limited by the arrangement of the drawing apparatus (column 10, lines 19-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023, Bazinet ‘241, and Sandogchi ‘708 by selecting a length of each individually drawn PCF prior to the cutting of a respective repetition for the benefit of obtaining a desired final length of PCF.
Regarding claim 6, Nakazawa ‘023 further teaches applying at least one pressure to one or more internal structures of the intermediate PCF so as to controllably change one or more internal dimensions of the intermediate PCF with respect to a then current outer fiber diameter of the intermediate PCF while preforming the elongating (¶ [0020], [0024], [0027]-[0028], [0033]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakazawa ‘023 further teaches the intermediate PCF comprises an intermediate hollow-core PCF which comprises a body having a hollow core surrounded by a plurality of capillaries, wherein each capillary encloses a capillary cavity formed by a wall portion of each of the plurality of capillaries and first and second ends of the intermediate HC-PCF (¶ [0002], [0015], [0025]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Nakazawa ‘023 further teaches the applying comprises applying at least one pressure to a hollow core of the intermediate PCF (¶ [0015], [0020], [0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakazawa ‘023 further teaches the applying comprises applying at least one pressure to each of the plurality of capillaries of the intermediate HC-PCF (¶ [0002], [0015], [0020], [0024]-[0028]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Nakazawa ‘023 teaches a method of producing PCFs (¶ [0001]) comprising:
obtaining an intermediate PCF (“preform”, ¶ [0015]; “PCF base material 13” ¶ [0024]-[0025])
producing a PCF from the intermediate PCF by drawing a length of PCF extending from a body of the intermediate PCF with at least one dimension of the length reduced compared to at least one dimension of the body of the intermediate PCF, and cutting the length from the intermediate PCF when drawn (¶ [0024]-[0038]).
Nakazawa ‘023 does not explicitly describe repetition of a plurality of repetitions of drawing a length and cutting the length. In analogous art of drawing optical fibers, Bazinet ‘241 suggests producing a plurality of fibers from a preform by performing a plurality of repetitions of drawing a length of fiber extending from a body of the preform with at least one dimension of the length reduced compared to a dimension of the body of the preform, and cutting the length from the preform when drawn for the benefit of continuously producing fibers of a desired length (column 3, lines 31-37; column 6, lines 10-15; column 7, lines 51-72; column 10, lines 13-32). Bazinet ‘241 suggests that an alternative manner of drawing and collecting fiber is to wind onto a drum (column 10, lines 33-62), similar to Nakazawa ‘023. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023 by making performing repetitions of drawing a length and cutting a length as an alternative manner of drawing and collecting optical fibers, and for the benefit of continuously producing fibers of a desired length, as suggested by Bazinet ‘241.
Nakazawa ‘023 is silent regarding an outer fiber diameter of the intermediate PCF. In analogous art of drawing glass fibers, Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests obtaining an intermediate fiber that is then elongated and drawn into a final fiber (“canes”, ¶ [0031]). Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests that such a process can be used with a variety of internal fiber microstructures, including PCFs (¶ [0038]-[0039], [0090]; Fig. 3), and with outer fiber diameters of the intermediate fiber in a range from 100 µm to 20 mm (¶ [0091]). It has been held that where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranged disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023 by selecting an outer fiber diameter in the range suggested by Sandoghchi ‘708 as known diameters for intermediate fibers for drawing into final fibers, wherein the range suggested by Sandoghchi ‘708 overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Nakazawa ‘023 is silent regarding the obtaining the intermediate PCF comprising producing the intermediate PCF from a cane using a fiber drawing process. Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests and intermediate fiber as described above, and further obtaining the intermediate fiber comprising producing the intermediate fiber from a cane using a drawing process (¶ [0031]-[0035]) for the benefit of producing clean end surfaces of the intermediate fiber (¶ [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023 by producing the intermediate PCF from a can using a fiber drawing process for the benefit of producing clean end surfaces of the intermediate PCF, as suggested by Sandoghchi ‘708.
Regarding claim 14, Nakazawa ‘023 teaches drawing a length as described above, but is silent regarding a length of each individually drawn PCF prior to the cutting. However, each PCF would necessarily have some length, and it has been held that a mere change in size of a component is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Also, Bazinet ‘241 suggests that the length prior to the cutting may be limited by the arrangement of the drawing apparatus (column 10, lines 19-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nakazawa ‘023, Bazinet ‘241, and Sadoghchi ‘708 by selecting a length of each individually drawn PCF prior to the cutting for the benefit of obtaining a desired final length of PCF.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa ‘023 (JP 2005-250023 A – English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein), Bazinet ’241 (US 3,037,241), and Sandoghchi ‘708 (US 2023/0011708 A1) in view of Ananev ‘479 (WO 2008/152479 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nakazawa ‘023 teaches elongating as described above, but is silent regarding elongating until an outer fiber diameter of the body of the elongated intermediate PCF is 200 µm or less. In analogous art of producing PCFs, Ananev ‘479 suggests an outer fiber diameter of a drawn PCF is 200 µm or less (Abstract; Example 1, p. 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakazawa ‘023 by performing the elongating until an outer fiber diameter of the body of the elongated intermediate PCF is 200 µm or less for the benefit of achieving a fiber diameter of a final PCF, as suggested by Ananev ‘479.
Claim(s) 1 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandoghchi ‘708 (US 2023/0011708 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sandoghchi ‘708 teaches:
obtaining an intermediate PCF (filament 10; ¶ [0039])
elongating the intermediate PCF so as to controllably reduce at least one dimension of the intermediate PCF, wherein the elongating comprises repetitions of drawing a length of PCF (cane portion 12) extending from a body of the intermediate PCF with at least one dimension of the length reduced comparted to at least one dimension of the body of the intermediate PCF, and cutting the length from the intermediate PCF when drawn (¶ [0031]-[0039], [0055]-[0059], [0082]-[0083]; Figs. 3, 7-9 - wherein a diameter at the drawn neck portion proximate location D/width W’ is less than a diameter of the main body of filament 10, e.g. proximate clamp 24).
Regarding an initial outer fiber diameter of the intermediate fiber, Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests that the disclosed process can be used with outer fiber diameters of the intermediate fiber in a range from 100 µm to 20 mm (¶ [0091]). It has been held that where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranged disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Sandoghchi ‘708 further teaches the drawing comprises heating the intermediate PCF (¶ [0042]-[0043], [0054]-[0055]). Sandoghchi ‘708 is silent regarding a specific size of a heating zone in the heating. However, Sandoghchi ‘708 suggests that size of the heating zone may be selected in order to deliver sufficient energy to the intermediate PCF to achieve desired softening and/or melting for cutting the length from the intermediate PCF (¶ [0042]-[0043], [0050], [0054]-[0055], [0091]). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sandoghchi ‘708 by selecting a size of the heating zone for the benefit of delivering sufficient energy to the intermediate PCF to achieve desired softening and/or melting for cutting the length from the intermediate PCF, as suggested by Sandoghchi ‘708.
Regarding claim 17, Sandoghchi ‘708 further teaches the drawing a length comprises mounting the intermediate PCF on a first stage at or near a first end of the intermediate PF and on a second stage at or near a second end of the intermediate PCF (first clamp arrangement 24, Second clamp arrangements 26, Fig. 4; ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Sandoghchi ‘708 further teaches the drawing a length further comprises heating at least one intermediate section of the intermediate PCF (¶ [0042]-[0043], [0054]-[0055]), the at least one intermediate section of the intermediate PCF being comprised between the position on the intermediate PCF at which the first stage is mounted and the position on the intermediate PCF at which the second stage is mounted (Figs. 4, 7-9; ¶ [0042], [0055]).
Regarding claim 19, Sandoghchi ‘708 further teaches the drawing a length further comprises moving the first stage and/or the second stage such that the first stage and the second stage are at respective different speeds (¶ [0057]-[0059], [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Sandoghchi ‘708 further teaches the moving comprises moving both the first stage and the second stage along the longitudinal direction in order to increase spacing between the first stage and the second stage (¶ [0057]-[0059], [0062]). This can only be achieved either by moving both stages in the same direction at different relative speeds, or by moving the stages in opposite directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try moving the first stage and the second stage of Sandoghchi ‘708 in opposite directions as one of two finite options to achieve an increase in spacing between the stages via movement of the stages along the longitudinal direction, with a predictable result of separating the intermediate PCF.
Regarding claim 21, Sandoghchi ‘708 further teaches the moving further comprises heating back and forth over the at least one intermediate section of the intermediate PCF (¶ [0050], [0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 in view of Nakazawa and Sandoghchi have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 03-10-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments are summarized as follows: Sandoghchi does not disclose drawing to reduce a dimension and cutting to form fibers.
Response: Sandogchi shows in Figs. 7-9 that drawing reduces a dimension proximate location D/width W’, and that it is cut, wherein filament is considered to be synonymous with fiber in a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights