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
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to EP23160463.8, with a filing date of 03/07/2023
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (s) (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing(s) to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing(s) under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). The Examiner suggests it would promote understanding of the invention to include drawings that illustrate:
The physical process set-up of the soot deposition process.
Example of translational movement strokes of the burners, highlighting inflection points, reversing movement, amplitude, and entire movement sequence in relation to relative position along the longitudinal axis of the carrier.
Example of overlapping soot traces on the carrier due to rotation of the carrier.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities, the format read/Examiner suggestion:
[0016] – “oscillation and rotational frequencies”/ “oscillation frequencies and rotational frequencies”.
[0020] - “rotation and translation”/ “rotation frequency and translation frequency”.
[0049] – “ translation by changing”/”translation movement by changing”; “variation of the translation”/”variation of the translation movement”.
[0069], [0072] – “the frequencies of the translation of the build-up burners and the rotation of the deposition surface”/ “the frequency of the translation movement of the build-up burners and the frequency of rotation of the deposition surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities, in the format read/Examiner suggestion.
In general, the claims are objected to because of the formatting and improper spacing throughout, for example “twomutually” in line 2 of Claim 1, making reading difficult.
Claim 1 - “wherein the distance between”/”wherein a distance between”; “an amplitude of the n-fold burner to burner distance d””/”an amplitude of the burner to burner distance: nd ”.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without understanding the meaning of statistically changed offset, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 CCPA 1976. The disclosure in [0051], [0063], and [0117] merely states “the inflection points (can be) change(d) by a statistically changed offset in each stroke”, without further definition or instruction of how the statistically changed offset is determined or calculated. This is not a well-known phrase of art and does not have a meaning which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no common definition and no explanation provided by the disclosure therefore the disclosure is not enabling.
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, 2, 4, 7 and 9 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.
Regarding Claim 1 - “the period of time for the m1-times rotation”/”a period of time for the m1-times rotation”; “the period of time for the translational movement”/” a period of time for the translational movement”.
Regarding Claim 2 – the limitation “the period of time for the (m2+(k/n))-times rotation of the deposition surface” is cited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “a period of time for the (m2+(k/n))-times rotation of the deposition surface”.
Regarding Claim 4 – the limitation “wherein the inflection points of the reversing movement change in each stroke” is cited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim regarding the word “stroke”. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “wherein for a stroke, the inflection points of the reversing movement change in each stroke”.
Regarding Claim 6 – it is unclear the definition of statistically changed offset in each stroke in regard to
the word “statistically”. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands the
word “statistically” to mean a mathematical calculation or process parameter.
Regarding Claim 9 – the limitation “wherein the movement profile of the build-up burners” is cited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “wherein a movement profile of the build-up burners”.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation
that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the
resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See
MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein m2 is an
integer from 1 to 100” and the claim also recites “preferably from 3 to 35” and “even more preferably
from 5 to 25”,which is/are the narrower statement(s) of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are
considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such
narrower language is,
merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required
feature of the claims.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and/or dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-9, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
USPGPUB 20220017404A1 by Sumi et. al. (herein “Sumi”) and in view of U.S. Patent 5,221,732
by Abbot et. al. (herein “Abbot”) and in further view of JP2013043810A (as submitted
in the IDS dated 03/01/2024) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith
and referenced herein) by Kusunoki (herein “Kusunoki”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Sumi teaches,
depositing SiO2 soot particles on a deposition surface, rotating about its longitudinal axis;
[0003], “In the manufacturing of soot body…converting silicon containing raw material into SiO2
fine particles…to deposit on the outer surface of a target rotating about its long axis.”
and the deposition surface is a cylinder jacket surface of a carrier on which carrier SiO2 soot
particles are deposited layer by layer; [0090],[0068], “…and subjecting the row of the burners
to reciprocating movement (swing) relative to a rotating target [ceramics tube having an outer
diameter (OD) of 50 mm] to deposit glass fine particles on the target in the form of a layer”, “
FIG. 3 is a schematic explanatory diagram for illustrating the application of a burner…the flame
applied from the burner to a deposit and spread thereon, an overlap between layers is large…”
using at least two mutually spaced and adjacent build-up burners; Fig. 1 illustrates a set of
burners 16a with individual burners 16 adjacent to one another.
the distance between the at least two build-up burners is d; [0057], “…in which the plurality of
burners 16a for synthesizing glass particles are arranged at predetermined intervals”. Further,
Fig. 1 illustrates spacing between burner elements 16.
wherein,
the build-up burners perform a translational movement relative to the deposition
surface, substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotating carrier; Fig. 1, [0026],
“…showing turning positions of the reciprocating movement (swing) of the burners…in the long
axis direction of the soot body”. Fig. 1 illustrates the set of burners 16a moving left and right
(the double headed arrow under 16a) parallel to the soot body which is on the rotating target
14.
the period of time for the m1-times rotation of the longitudinal axis of the carrier is sub-
stantially equal to the period of time for the translational movement of the build-up burners
from a burner-to-burner distance d; [0030],[0031]; An equation for a frequency factor y is
“y= S/(L8Nm), and 0.13 ≤ y <1, where S represents a moving speed (mm/min) of the burners, L
represents a moving distance (mm) of the burners, and Nm represents a lowest value (rpm) of
the rotation (m1) number of the soot body, which is fluctuated”. Let S = 50mm/min, L= 100mm
where a burner distance d is 50mm (L =2d) and Nm = 2.1 rpm, or 2.1 revolutions per minute. Then
in 1 minute, the burners have moved at least two (2) burner distances d (2d) , two revolutions have
occurred, and the equation is y = 50mm/min /(100mm * 2.1 rpm) = 0.238, which satisfies 0.13 ≤ y
<1.
Sumi teaches a translational movement of the burners relative to the deposition surface of a
value L [0028], but does not explicitly teach amplitude in terms of the burner-to-burner
distance. In the same endeavor as depositing soot on a rotating target, Abbot teaches,
by an amplitude of the n-fold burner-to-burner distance d; Col 3 lines 34-37, “ For an
oscillation amplitude J which is approximately equal to the burner spacing d…”
wherein,
n is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and d corresponds to the single burner-to-burner
distance; Col 8 lines 11-14, Col 3 lines 53-55, “ “ if the number of burners and burner spacing
for…the technique of the present invention are n and d, respectively…”, “ That is, the peak-to-
peak amplitude of the oscillation pattern is twice the burner spacing…”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to define the amplitude of the oscillation in terms of burner
spacing and number of burners per Abbot in the method of Sumi, so that the useable portion of
the blank receives soot from more than one burner, as noted by Abbot (Col 8 lines 13-15).
Sumi teaches a frequency factor with components of moving speed of the burners, moving
distance of the burners and rotation frequency of the soot body [0028], but does not teach the
instant claim. In the same endeavor as depositing soot on a rotating target, Kusunoki teaches,
the deposition surface rotates m1 times about the longitudinal axis of the carrier; [0014], “an
equation that satisfies ….L (mm) = moving distance… V= reciprocating movement velocity (mm
/ min)… and the rotation speed N (rpm) = rotation number (rpm)”.
wherein,
wherein m1 is a positive decimal number other than an integer; [0015], “(L / V) × N (rpm) = n +
0.5 ± 0.1 (1) where n: any integer.” n represents the start position of the rotation. When n = 1,
L=100mm, and V = 850mm/min), then N (rpm) is 12.75, a non-integer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to control the rotation of the deposition surface such that it
is a non-integer to ensure there is absent overlap of deposition traces, per Kusunoki [0019], Fig
4A.
Regarding Claim 2 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Sumi teaches wherein,
the period of time for the (m2+(k/n))-times rotation, and m1 = m2+(k/n), of the deposition
surface about the longitudinal axis of the carrier substantially corresponds to the period of time
for the translational movement of the build-up burners from a burner-to-burner distance d,
wherein m2 is an integer from 1 to 100, preferably from 3 to 35, even more preferably from 5
to 25, k is a natural number less than n. [0030],[0031]; An equation for a frequency factor y is
“¥= S/(L*Nm), and 0.13 ≤ y <1, where S represents a moving speed (mm/min) of the burners, L
represents a moving distance (mm) of the burners, and Nm represents a lowest value (rpm) of
the rotation (m1) number of the soot body, which is fluctuated”.
To define,
Nm = m1 = m2 + (k/n)
m1 = a positive decimal number
k = 1 (is a natural number less than n)
n = 2 (integer greater than or equal to 2)
m2 = 2 (integer from 1 to 100)
Let S = 100mm/min, L= 100mm , burner to burner distance d = 50mm (moving distance L is then n-
fold the burner-to-burner distance d ).
Then,
m1 = 2 + (1/2) = 2.5 = Nm = revolutions per minute of rotation.
Further, ¥ = S/(L*Nm), and 0.13 ≤ ¥ <1. So, in one minute,
¥= 100/(100*2.5) = 0.4, which satisfies and 0.13 ≤ ¥ <1,
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 4, and Claim 5 (with Claims 4 and 5 dependent on Claim 3) – Sumi, Abbot and
Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sumi further teaches wherein,
Claim 3 - the translational movements of the build-up burners represent a reversing movement
Whose direction changes at inflection points, wherein the axial position of the inflection points
changes relative to the deposition surface and the longitudinal axis;
Claim 4 - the inflection points of the reversing movement change in each stroke;
Claim 5 - the inflection points change in each stroke according to a fixedly predefined movement
pattern.
Fig 2B, [0066], “ In the method according to at least one embodiment of the present invention, a
so-called wobbling condition of moving the turning positions of the swing by predetermined
distances (a) in a certain direction so as to move the turning positions in an opposite direction at
predetermined positions may be used”.
Regarding Claim 6 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 3 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 3.
Sumi teaches moving turning positions as it relates to the flame diameter of a burner but does not
teach,
the inflection points change by a statistically changed offset in each stroke;
Abbot further teaches the turn-around points of the burner array are preferably varied in a systematic way (Col 3 lines 23-26). While Abbot does not explicitly teach a statistical change, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the systematic means to vary the turnaround points per Abbot, such as calculations or some defined statistical method, in the method of Sumi, for the purpose of improving the axial uniformity of the finished preform, as noted by Abbot (Col 3 lines 25-26). The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Sumi teaches wherein, the build-up burners perform a translational movement substantially parallel to
the longitudinal axis of the rotating carrier,
by an amplitude of twice the burner-to-burner distance 2d,
while the deposition surface substantially simultaneously performs a rotation of (m2 + (k/n) + y) revolutions,
wherein m2 is an integer from 1 to 100, preferably from 3 to 35, even more preferably from 5 to 25, k is a natural number less than n, m1 = m2+(k/n) and y varies between -0.3 and 0.3.
[0030],[0031]; An equation for a frequency factor y is “¥= S/(L*Nm), and 0.13 ≤ y <1, where
S represents a moving speed (mm/min) of the burners, L represents a moving distance
(mm) of the burners, and Nm represents a lowest value (rpm) of the rotation (m1+y)
number of the soot body, which is fluctuated”.
To define,
Nm = m1 + y
m1 = m2 + (k/n)
m1 = a positive decimal number
k = 1 (is a natural number less than n)
n = 2 (integer greater than or equal to 2)
-0.3 < y < 0.3, let y =0.1
m2 = 2 (integer from 1 to 100)
Let S = 100mm/min, L= 100mm , burner to burner distance d = 50mm (moving distance L is then 2
fold the burner-to-burner distance d, or 2d ).
Then,
m1 = 2 + (1/2) + 0.1 = 2.6 = Nm = revolutions per minute of rotation.
Further, ¥ = S/(L*Nm), and 0.13 ≤ ¥ <1. So, in one minute,
¥= 100/(100*2.6) = 0.38, which satisfies and 0.13 ≤ ¥ <1.
Regarding Claim 8 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Sumi teaches wherein,
the rotation of the deposition surface and the variation of the inflection points are adapted such that the method results in a homogeneous soot build-up.
[0025], [0030], “ An object of the present invention is to provide…where the local density distribution of the soot body under constant-peripheral speed and low-rotation number conditions caused by an increase in diameter of the soot body to an outer diameter of more than 300 mm is eliminated..”,” according to at least one embodiment of the present invention… arranging a plurality of burners for synthesizing glass fine particles at predetermined intervals and subjecting the burners to reciprocating movement to deposit glass fine particles on a rotating target…wherein a rotation peripheral speed of the soot body is controlled so as to be practically constant by fluctuating a rotation number of the soot body…”
Regarding Claim 9 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Sumi teaches wherein,
the movement profile of the build-up burners on the deposition surface is determined; [0026],
“ FIG. 4 is a graph for showing turning positions of the reciprocating movement (swing) of the
burners and the density distribution of the deposited layer in the long axis direction of the soot
body”. See Fig. 4 below, where the movement profile of the burners is illustrated.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13 and 14 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 9 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 9.
Sumi further teaches wherein,
Claim 13 - the longitudinal axis of the rotating carrier is oriented vertically or horizontally ;
Claim 14 - the longitudinal axis of the rotating carrier is oriented horizontally;
[0055], “ FIG. 1 is a schematic explanatory diagram for illustrating a method of manufacturing a hollow
porous quartz glass preform according to at least one embodiment of the present invention…including
arranging a plurality of burners 16a for synthesizing glass fine particles and subjecting the
burners 16a to reciprocating movement to deposit glass fine particles on a rotating target 14…”. Fig. 1
illustrates the longitudinal axis of the carrier oriented horizontally.
PNG
media_image2.png
449
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
USPGPUB 20220017404A1 by Sumi et. al. (herein “Sumi”) and in view of U.S. Patent 5,221,732
by Abbot et. al. (herein “Abbot”) and in further view of JP2013043810A (as submitted
in the IDS dated 03/01/2024) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith
and referenced herein) by Kusunoki (herein “Kusunoki”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20180009699A1 by Nakajima et. al (herein “Nakajima”).
Regarding Claim 10 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 9 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 9.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
the movement profile of the build-up burners on the deposition surface is continuously monitored online by means of a processor during the deposition of the SiO2 soot particles.
In the same endeavor as depositing soot on a rotating target, Nakajima teaches “The control
unit 8 monitors the density of the soot 6 that is obtained as described above, and controls…the moving
speed of the burner 5; and gas conditions of the glass making feedstock gas jetted out from
the burner 5” , “ The obtained density of the soot 6 may be reflected in…the moving speed of
the burner 5, and the like by automatic processing” [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us the
monitoring process method of Nakajima in the method of the combination in order to be able to adjust
the density of the synthesized glass particles, in part, by the moving speed of the burner, as noted by
Nakajima ([0028]). Further while the combination doesn’t teach “on-line” processing,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to use on-line processing, as it is common in industrial settings. One would have been
motivated to do so for the basic industrial reason of remote programming or remote trouble shooting. A
person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If
this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 9 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 9.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
the processor identifies, from the movement profile of the build-up burners on the deposition surface, regions of the deposition surface in which too few SiO2 soot particles have been deposited for a homogeneous soot build-up.
Nakajima further teaches a relationship between burner speed (V) and rotation speed (r) designated as sweeping pitch (P=V/r) and that sweeping pitch must be reduced into a predetermined range such that the reduction of sweeping pitch is effective when the synthesis of soot is in the range 0.5L<R<0.8L, where R is the outer diameter of the deposition surface and L is the final outer diameter of the fiber preform ([0031], [0032]). The above relationships provide an acceptable density range of the soot of 0.65≤ ꝓ, ≤0.85, where ꝓ is density. By the series of relationships, the burner speed V in part effects increasing the density (too may particles) or decreases the density (too few particles). Fig. 2 illustrates sweeping pitch and, among other variables, burner speed as it related to density.
PNG
media_image3.png
676
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Nakajima to control density, which
includes in part changing/controlling the burner speed due to the measured in-
process soot preform diameter, in the method of Sumi where density sensitive areas have been
identified at the burner turning/reversal points. One would have been motivated to do so to
add another process control parameter which supports increasing the size of preforms and
prevent the generation of bumps on the deposition surface, as noted by Nakajima ([0059],
[0060]).
Regarding Claim 12 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 9 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 9.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
the processor controls the rotation of the deposition surface about the longitudinal axis of the carrier,
and/or
the inflection points of the reversing translational movement of the build-up burners,
such that a substantially homogeneous soot body is built up.
Nakajima further teaches a method of manufacturing a porous glass preform includes: depositing glass particles on an outer periphery of a target where the target is rotating [0008] the rotating speed of the motor of the rotation drive mechanism is controlled by automatic processing [0025]. Fig. 1 illustrates the rotation is around the longitudinal axis as noted by the arrow A. Further Nakajima cites that a porous glass preform for an optical fiber with a sufficiently homogeneous density is difficult to be manufactured by the control of only the gas conditions of the glass making feedstock gas jetted out from the burner 5. Accordingly, a need arises, for adjustment of, not only the gas conditions of the glass making feedstock gas jetted out from the burner 5, but also the moving speed of the burner 5 and the rotating speed of the target rod 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control of Nakajima to produce a homogeneous soot body it is difficult to obtain a sufficiently homogeneous density with control of only gas conditions of the glass making, as noted by Nakajima ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 15 – Sumi, Abbot and Kusunoki in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Sumi further teaches wherein,
the frequency of the rotation of the deposition surface during each change of direction of the reversing movement of the build-up burners is adapted to the current diameter of the SiO2 soot body; [0058], [0059], [0060], “As illustrated in FIG. 1, through use of the target holding and rotating mechanism 20, which is configured to control the rotation number of the target 14, … the rotation peripheral speed of the soot body 12 is controlled so as to be practically constant by fluctuating the rotation number of the soot body 12 on the basis of the fluctuating outer diameter of the soot body 12 during growth”, “ability to manufacture large diameter preforms is hindered by cracks caused by a local density difference generated in the soot body, and the local density difference occurs as a result of a coincidence between the timing of one rotation of the soot body and the timing of turning of the swing of the burners” ( in summary, the coincidence occurs at the turning points of the swing), “The vicinity of a site at which the coincidence occurs attains a high density, whereas any other site attains an extremely low density. In addition, the large density difference results in the formation of a crack during growth or after completion of growth.” Hence, to solve the problem of cracks of large diameter preforms, Sumi uses a method where the rotating frequency is changed where the cracks form due to density differences, which is at the end of swing during the reversal of the swing.
Sumi fails to teach,
the frequency of the translation of the build-up burners during each change of direction of the reversing movement of the build-up burners is adapted to the current diameter of the SiO2 soot body.
In the same endeavor as depositing soot on a rotating target, Nakajima teaches a control method where
there is a relationship between the outer diameter of a preform during the deposition process, the
rotating speed of the target, and the moving speed of the burners, where the rotating speed of the
target and the moving speed of the burners are changed in accordance to a relationship between the
outer diameter of the preform during the deposition process and the final desired diameter of the
preform ([0008]. Further, Nakajima cites using diameter measurements and weight measurements to
obtain a density measurements at soot diameter positions ([0023], [0024]) and that the density
measurements are used to control the moving speed of the burner ([0025]). Fig. 2 illustrates an output
based on the relationships where diameter measurement and burner speed are used to control density.
outlined in [0008].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Nakajima to control density, which
includes in part changing/controlling the burner speed due to the measured in-
process soot preform diameter, in the method of Sumi where density sensitive areas have been
identified at the burner turning/reversal points. One would have been motivated to do so to
add another process control parameter which supports increasing the size of preforms and
prevent the generation of bumps on the deposition surface, as noted by Nakajima ([0059],
[0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741