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 .
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 01/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 4 has been amended.
Applicant' s Arguments with respect to claims (s) in the Non-Final rejection dated 10/17/2025 have been considered persuasive and the previous rejections have been withdrawn. Due to the Amendments filed 01/15/2026, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendments. The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
a) the modification of Caronna by Shintomi in light of "If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." MPEP § 2143.01, part V (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
b) the rationale for modifying Caronna – to reduce GeO2 diffusion, is illogical as Caronna provides no hint that GeO2 diffusion is a problem.
c) there is no reasonable expectation of success in modifying the dehydration step of Example 3 of Caronna according to the second heat treatment step of Shintomi.
d) in relation to the amount of chlorine gas used in Caronna Example 3 vs. Shintomi, there is no reasonable expectation of success in modifying the dehydration step of Example 3 of CARONNA in the manner that the Office does according to the second heat treatment step of SHINTOMI. "Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success." MPEP § 2143.02.
Regarding Claim 4 the Applicant argues that, a) the amendment to Claim 4 does not meet the minimum temperature requirement of Shintomi and there would be no reason for a PHOSITA to disregard the minimum temperature requirement of Shintomi.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6 the Applicant argues that,
a) the Office is engaging in hindsight, “Impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion of obviousness must be reached on the basis of facts gleaned from prior art”, in relation to the period of time of 4.5hrs for the dehydration step of Caronna as it relates to the modification by Shintomi. Further that the first heating step of Caronna, the dehydration step, is not the same purpose as Shintomi, which is to partially densify the preform and not dehydrate the preform. And a PHOSITA would need to optimize the two different purposes which would require PHOSITA to optimize yet there is an absence of how to do so.
Regarding Claim 7 the Applicant argues that,
a)the Office is engaging in hindsight bias, in that the 1.5L/min chlorine gas in Caronna to achieve dehydration and picking the temperature of Shintomi for achieve densification/address GeO2 diffusion problem is a selective combination of two different parameters to meet different ends in order to read on the claim.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
In general, agreement there is a disconnect between the first heat treatment temperature and time of Caronna and heat treatment temperature and time of Shintomi in the manner the application was examined. The Examiner has examined the application without the use of Caronna Example 3, as it is a singular/narrow example of broader teachings in the primary reference of Caronna. This disconnect is the basis for, in essence, the remaining arguments of the Applicant in some form. The Examiner provides below a new lens of examination.
Regarding Claim 1 - In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
a) Caronna provides a general first temperature that is greater than or equal to 1250 °C (Col 13 lines 27-
31) of 1000° C. to 1350° C, which reads on the claim. Examiner agrees Caronna does not explicitly recite
simultaneously a first temperature that is greater than or equal to 1250°C for a first period of time
greater than or equal to 1hr. There is a nexus for Shintomi (in Office Action below, Claim 1). Annotated
Fig. 3 of Shintomi provides an analogous in step heat treatment of 1350°C for 2.5hrs. Further, the
Examiner agrees that Caronna teaches no sintering in the first heat treatment step of dehydration, and
Shintomi also teaches no sintering – Shintomi teaches densification up 80%, which is not sintering. One
skilled in the art would know sintering involves a vitreous glassy phase present near the end/end of
densification. Further, Caronna teaches the dehydration step in general includes a halogen in chlorine
(Col 13 lines 29-31) where a singular Example 3 specifies the chlorine at 1.5 l/min (1.84% of the total gas
flow and 1.84% partial pressure of chlorine) for a temperature and time that does not read on claim 1.
Yet, the second heat treatment step of Shintomi uses chlorine (Page 3 lines 18-22) with a partial
pressure of 1% or less (Page 6 lines 51-54). The Applicant’s characterization that the amount of chlorine
between Caronna and Shintomi provide a fundamental distinction to negate reasonable expectation of
success is marginal and opinion, and in effect provides a further nexus for Shintomi. The modification of
Shintomi does not render Caronna unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as both Caronna and
Shintomi have an intended purpose of producing a porous preform that is processed by a sequence of
thermal processes to provide a consolidated glass preform for drawing fiber. Further, Applicant's
arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable
novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the
references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such
references or objections. The Examiner does not understand the comment related to Caronna teaching
a second heat treatment step where the “chlorine gas is 50cc/min and the helium gas is 20L/min, as the
Examiner fails to detect this phrase in Caronna. In light of above the Shintomi and densification
parameters remain valid.
b) Caronna does cite germanium dopant in the core and while not explicit, one skilled in the art would that any dopant in a core is a candidate for diffusion during doping/dehydrating/consolidation processes. Shintomi’s reasoning would certainly apply to Caronna for the PHOSITA.
c) the reasonable expectation of success in modifying the dehydration step of Example 3 of Caronna according to the second heat treatment step of Shintomi was partially addressed in a). Further, the Applicant’s argument about chlorine is not stated in the claim, i.e. Shintomi is not relied upon to teach chlorine concentration but is relied upon for temperature, time and densification in regard to the first heat treatment step of the instant claim. As well, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971), MPEP 7.37.03.
d) in relation to the amount of chlorine gas used in Caronna Example 3 vs. Shintomi, there is no reasonable expectation of success in modifying the dehydration step of Example 3 of CARONNA in the manner that the Office does according to the second heat treatment step of SHINTOMI, the Office has offered a broader view lens than Example 3 of Caronna and the argument related to chlorine has been addressed in a) above.
Regarding Claim 4 -In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that, a) the temperature requirement of Shintomi of 1350°C provides an opportunity for optimization of a cause effective variable, as Shintomi provides a working model of what the temperature/time process window is to target a density of 1.76g/cm3 . Shintomi states time and temperature can be adjusted to
to meet a targeted density(Page 6 lines 57-59, Page 7 lines 1-2), as well as the model is applied to the
furnace of the invention (PHOSITA would know two different furnaces will provide different thermal
attributes for the same set up). Further, that a PHOSITA would not have any reason to disregard the
minimum temperature of Shintomi is opinion, and as such, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37
CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the
claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made.
Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6 In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
a) the time of Shintomi of 2.5hrs provides an opportunity for optimization of a cause effective variable, as Shintomi provides a working model of what the temperature/time process window is to target a density of 1.76g/cm3 . Shintomi states time and temperature can be adjusted to
to meet a targeted density(Page 6 lines 57-59, Page 7 lines 1-2), as well as the model is applied to the
furnace of the invention (PHOSITA would know two different furnaces will provide different thermal
attributes for the same set up). As the dehydration process of Caronna uses chlorine and Shintomi uses chlorine in the second heat treatment step of Shintomi, this provides a nexus. Shintomi is not relied upon to teach chlorine levels but is relied upon to teach time and temperature for densification Shintomi. In regard to hindsight, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971), MPEP 7.37.03.
Regarding Claim 7 In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
a) the Examiner has addressed this in the response to Claim 1, 5 and 6 above.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained
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 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,186,515
By Caronna et. al. (herein “Caronna”) and in further view of JP2011057490A by Shintomi (herein
“Shintomi”).
NOTE: In Caronna, the three (3) heating steps vs. the instant claim three (3) heating steps in regard to
labelling is outlined in the table below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1 – Caronna teaches,
A method of manufacturing comprising:
with a porous glass body; Col 3 lines 32-35, Col 4 lines 49-50 “…the present invention embraces
improved methods of manufacturing…glass preform for optical fibers”, “…which can diffuse
across the porous structure of the soot”
having a surface and a density having been loaded into a furnace with heating elements, a first
heat treatment step; Col 4 lines 24-25, 47-48, “Fig. 1 is a schematic side view of a furnace for
dehydration…”, “ When gases are fed into the muffle tube, the outer surface of the preform is
exposed…”; Fig. 4 elements 66 and 67 are heaters, soot preform is element 11 in the
dehydration furnace.
activating the heating elements until the porous glass body at an inner surface of the porous
glass body facing a centerline of the porous glass body; Col 8 lines 50-54, 60-62; “The glass core
preform can be obtained from a soot preform formed by…an OVD process”, using a
“longitudinal mandrel” , “ After completion of the deposition process, the mandrel is removed
from the soot preform leaving a central hole along the longitudinal axis of the soot preform”.
The central hole provides and inner surface of the porous soot body where the surface faces a
centerline of the porous soot body.
has a first temperature that is greater than or equal to 1250 °C; Col 13 lines 27-31, “The typical
dehydration temperature is of from 1000° C. to 1350° C”.
While Caronna teaches “The typical dehydration temperature is of from 1000° C. to 1350° C” (Col 13
lines 27-31) in a dual-purpose dehydration/consolidation furnace (lines 29-51) and the dehydration
time of 4.5hr at 1100°C (Example 3, Col 16), a preheating step (fluorine doping) where fluorine gas is
used at a temperature 800°C to 1200°C, as well as a core doped with germanium (Col 8 lines 47-49 ,Col
15 lines 1-3) Caronna fails to specifically state the specific claim language,
a first temperature that is greater than or equal to 1250 °C for a first period of time greater
than or equal to 1hr , wherein as a result of the first heat treatment, the density of the porous
glass body at the surface increase but is less than 85% of a closed pore density of a sintered
glass preform made from the porous glass body.
NOTE: In Shintomi, the three (3) heating steps vs. the instant claim three (3) heating steps in regard to
labelling is outlined in the table below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the similar endeavor to manufacturing and heating porous body preforms, Shintomi teaches a second
heat treatment step that is determined by modelling partial pressures of GeO, where,
The core is doped with germanium; Page 3 line 34 “The diffusion of GeO2 which is a core dopant
material…”
A first heat treat step at a temperature with halogen gas (analogous to Caronna fluorine doping
step) ; Page 5, lines 13-15, “ From the above, it can be seen that in the first heat treatment step
in which heating is performed in an inert gas atmosphere containing a halogen gas at a
temperature of 1100 to 1300 ° C., almost no decomposition and vaporization of GeO 2 occurs,
so that almost no diffusion occurs”.
during the second heat treatment step (analogous to the Caronna dehydration/Instant claim
first heat treatment step), (Page 6 lines 1, 53-54) a chlorine gas (halogen is used).
absence of sintering in the second heat treatment (aligns with Caronna, “The upper hot zone 66′
is set at a dehydration temperature Td that induces no sintering of the soot. The typical
dehydration temperature is of from 1000° C. to 1350° C”, Col 13 lines 26-28); the second heat
treatment of Shintomi only involves densification (Page 5 lines 44-48), where the sintering of
Shintomi occurs on third heat treatment of Shintomi ( Page 7 lines 38-42, “… as a third heat
treatment step…to obtain a glass rod that was made into a transparent glass”; transparent glass
rod = vitreous = sintered).
The above provides a nexus for Shintomi.
Shintomi teaches where the minimum second heat treatment temperature is 1350°C and the maximum
second heat treatment temperature is 1450°C the bulk density is set of 1.76 g/cm3( Page 5 lines 44-
48). Hence, the bulk density of 1.76 g/cm3 can be obtained at any temperature within the 1350°C –
1450°C range depending on the time ( Page 6 lines 57-59, Page 7 lines 1-2). Annotated Figure 3
illustrates the present model where at 1350°C the time is 2.5hrs.
PNG
media_image3.png
692
1191
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Legend:
PNG
media_image4.png
221
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The density of 1.76 g/cm3 corresponds to 0.8 relative density of quartz (2.2 g/cm3) after the second
heat treatment (Page 6 lines 30-32). A relative density of 0.8 equals 80% density, which is less than 85%
density.
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 temperature range of Shintomi (at least 1350°) in the method
of Caronna, one being motivated by the desire to densify to some extent the porous preform to reduce
the degree of GeO diffusion, per Shintomi ( Page 5, lines 45-46). As one skilled in the art would know,
any dopant in core rod of a porous preform is a candidate for diffusion, which can hinder the required
index of refraction gradient in a preform.
Regarding Claim 2 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
a length of the porous glass body, before the first heat treatment step occurs, is greater than or
equal to 1 meter; Col 15 lines 16-19, 22-25, “Several soot-core preforms were manufactured by
an OVD process…with a germanium-doped silica core region… The soot core preforms produced
by the deposition were 1 meter long and had a central longitudinal hole after removal of the
mandrel”.
Regarding Claim 3 - Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
the first temperature is within a first range of from 1250°C to 1400°C; Caronna teaches this
previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4 - Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the first temperature is within a first range from of 1250°C to 1330°C;
Shintomi discloses the claimed invention except for a temperature of 1330°C. As time and temperature
of Shintomi are cause effective variables related to density, 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
temperature of 1330°C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective
variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use 1330°C for the
purpose of targeting a difference in density (which would still read on claim 1) for particular
requirements of optical fiber preform process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) A.
Further, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as
these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215
(CCPA 1980). ). Further, Shintomi cites that FIG. 3 shows heat treatment conditions using the heating
furnace of the present invention (Examiner emphasis). As one skilled in the art would know, no two
furnaces are alike in their thermal performance, where set-up A on furnace A is unlikely to provide the
same thermal attributes for set-up A on furnace B.
Regarding Claim 5 and 6 - Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the first period of time is greater than or equal to 4 hours (Claim 5)
the first period of time is greater than or equal to 4 to 9 hours (Claim 6)
Shintomi discloses the claimed invention except for a period of time equal to 4hrs. As time and
temperature of Shintomi are cause effective variables related to density, 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 time of 4hrs. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective
variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use 4hrs. for the
purpose of target a difference in density for particular
requirements of optical fiber preform process. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) A.
Further, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as
these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215
(CCPA 1980
Regarding Claim 7 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
during the first heat treatment step, an environment to which the porous glass body is
subjected within the furnace comprises a cleaning gas comprising a halogen gas, a hydrogen
halide gas, or carbon monoxide; Col 13 lines 27-31, “The typical dehydration temperature is of
from 1000° C. to 1350° C. In the dehydration process, one or more drying gases including or
consisting of chlorine, are fed in the furnace…”. Chlorine (Cl2 ) is a halogen.
Regarding Claim 8 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
a core vapor deposition step of vapor depositing core glass material upon a substrate to form
the porous glass body; Col 8, lines 50-52, 60-61 “The glass core preform can be obtained from a
soot preform formed using a flame hydrolysis deposition process, typically by an OVD process.
In the OVD process, a longitudinal mandrel, generally tapered to ease removal and made of
alumina or other ceramic material…”, “After completion of the deposition process, the mandrel
is removed from the soot preform.”
Regarding Claim 9 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
a preheating heat treatment step, occurring before the first heat treatment step,
comprising activating the heating elements of the furnace so that the environment to which the
porous glass body is subjected has a preheating temperature that is greater than or equal to 800
°C but below the first temperature for a preheating period of time; Col 9 lines 38-41, 63-64, Col
12 lines 28-32, “During the fluorine doping phase the first furnace has a single hot zone
extending vertically along the longitudinal direction of the muffle tube over a length that
approximately corresponds to the length L of the heater. The heater is set at a constant
temperature…”, “Typically the doping temperature is 800°C to 1200°C…”, “The inventors have
discovered that an effective fluorine doping of the soot preform can be attained with relatively
short processing times. Typically, the soot preform is maintained at the doping temperature Tf
for a doping time from 20 minutes to 120 minutes (2hrs)…”
Regarding Claim 10 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 9 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 9.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
during the preheating step, the environment to which the porous glass body is subjected
comprises a halogen gas, a hydrogen halide gas, or carbon monoxide; Caronna teaches this
previously in Claim 9 (“During the fluorine doping phase”). Further, Col 6 lines 2-23, “ the
fluorine containing gas may contain… SiF4, SF6, CF4, and C2F6, or combinations thereof”. Fluorine
(F) is a halogen.
Regarding Claim 11 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 9 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 9.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
the preheating temperature is within a range of from 800 °C to 1200 °C; Caronna teaches this
previously in Claim 9 (“Typically the doping temperature is 800°C to 1200°C…”).
Regarding Claim 12 - Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 9 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 9.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
the preheating period of time is greater than or equal to 2 hours; Caronna teaches this
previously in Claim 9 (Typically the soot preform is maintained at the doping temperature Tf
for a doping time from 20 minutes to 120 minutes (2hrs)…”
Regarding Claim 13 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
a second heat treatment step comprising activating the heating elements of the furnace so that
the environment to which the porous glass body is subjected has a second temperature that is
greater than or equal to 1400 °C thus causing the porous glass body to densify;
Col 12 lines 38-41, Col 13 lines 49-51, Col 13 lines 43-47, Col 14 lines 18-29, FIG. 4, “Following
the fluorine-doping process, the fluorine-doped soot preform 11 is extracted from the first
furnace (30 or 40) and transferred to a dehydration and consolidation furnace, indicated as
second furnace…”, “The heater 67…is typically set at a consolidation temperature, Tc, of from
1500°C to 1650°C”, “Subsequent to dehydration, the dried fluorine-doped soot preform is
consolidated by subjecting the preform to a temperature higher than the glass transition
temperature and sufficient to induce sintering (sintering = densification + vitreous phase) of the
porous preform into solid glass”, “In the embodiments in which the soot preform 11 is a core
soot preform made by OVD or VAD, after the soot deposition process, the soot preform has a
central longitudinal hole (not shown in the figures), which extends axially through the preform.
Complete closure of the central longitudinal hole produces a glass core rod for a preform for an
optical fiber. Closure of the central hole can be attained during or after consolidation of the
glass core preform. Simultaneous consolidation of the soot core preform and closure of the
preform's central longitudinal hole can be carried out by creating a vacuum in the central
longitudinal hole”. FIG. 4 illustrates upper heater 66 and lower heater 67. Further, overlapping
ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected
the portion of Caronna’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP
2144.05.
Regarding Claim 14 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 13.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
during the second heat treatment step, the porous glass body densifies primarily radially inward
toward a centerline of the porous glass body; Col 14 lines 28-32, “In this way, by passing through
the consolidation hot zone 67’, the dried fluorine doped soot preform shrinks radially (and
axially) with simultaneous collapse of the central longitudinal hole”.
Regarding Claim 15 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 13.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
the second temperature is within a range of from 1400 °C to 1600 °C; Caronna teaches this
previously in Claim 13 (“The heater 67…is typically set at a consolidation temperature, Tc, of
from 1500°C to 1650°C”). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have selected the portion of Caronna’s temperature range that
corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 16 - Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 13.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
the second heat treatment step occurs until the density at the surface of the porous glass body
is greater than 99% of the closed pore density, thus transforming the porous glass body into a
sintered glass preform; Col 13 lines 43-47, “Subsequent to dehydration, the dried fluorine-
doped soot preform is consolidated by subjecting the preform to a temperature higher than the
glass transition temperature and sufficient to induce sintering (densification + vitreous phase as
one skilled in the art would know) of the porous preform into solid glass”. Caronna cites
“sintering of porous preform into a solid glass” with essentially the substantially identical
processes. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or
substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially
identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to
have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re
Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 17 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 16 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
a redraw step comprising redrawing the sintered glass preform into a core cane; Col 14 lines 40-
48, “Subsequent to the consolidation of the core preform, the glass core preform is…subjected
to a stretching process to reduce its outer diameter and to enhance straightness of the
cylindrical rod. The stretching process can be carried out by a conventional stretching apparatus.
The stretched core preform is severed into a plurality of core rods, each of the core rods
constituting a central region of a final optical fiber preform.”
Regarding Claim 18- Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 17 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 17.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
an outer cladding vapor deposition step comprising forming a porous outer cladding layer over
the core cane; Col 14 lines 48-55, “ Each core rod can be used as a substrate for an over cladding
process, known per se. Typically, a soot overclad layer is formed by depositing soot material on
the outer circumference of the core rod by a flame hydrolysis process. In an exemplary
embodiment, the over cladding region is formed by an OVD process, in which the core rod is
placed on a horizontal lathe and deposition of silica soot takes place outside the rotating
preform…”
and a cladding sintering step comprising sintering the porous outer cladding layer thus forming
an optical fiber preform; Col 14 lines 58-66, “Once the desired thickness of the soot overclad
layer is achieved on the core rod, soot deposition for the formation of the soot overclad layer is
terminated. Typically, the overclad region is made of pure silica.
(69) The resulting partially porous soot preform is dried and sintered in a furnace, which can be
a dehydration-consolidation furnace of the type described with reference to FIG. 4.
Consolidation produces a glass preform, which is to be drawn into an optical fiber.”
Regarding Claim 19 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 18 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 18.
Caronna further teaches wherein,
an optical fiber draw step comprising drawing an optical fiber from the optical fiber preform;
Col 14 line 67, Col 15 lines 1-9, “Following the formation of a glass optical fiber preform, the
glass optical fiber preform is lowered at a relatively low speed into a drawing tower…wherein
the glass softens, and the glass optical fiber preform is reduced in cross-sectional area to the
desired cross-sectional area of the optical fiber. From the lower tip of the neck-down region, the
optical fiber emerges…”
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,186,515
By Caronna et. al. (herein “Caronna”) and in further view of JP2011057490A by Shintomi (herein
“Shintomi”) and in further view of U.S Patent 10,544,057 by Cocchini et. al. (herein “Cocchini”) as evidenced by “Bend Sensitive Optical Fibers for High Radiation Environments” by Risch et. al. 2015 (herein “Risch”).
Regarding Claim 20 – Caronna and Shintomi in the rejection of claim 19 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 19.
Caronna teaches attenuation values for Example 3 ( which is the same attenuation values as Example 1;
Col 17 lines 29-30) measured in the optical fibers were 0.33 dB/km at 1310 nm, 0.28 dB/km at 1380
nm, and 0.19 dB/km at 1550 nm but fails to teach:
optical fiber exhibits an attenuation of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength of 1310
nm of less than or equal to 0.324 dB/km as measured with an optical time-domain
reflectometer,
and the
optical fiber exhibits an attenuation of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength of 1550
nm of less than or equal 0.186 dB/km as measured with an optical time-domain reflectometer.
NOTE: In Cocchini, the three (3) heating steps vs. the instant claim/Caronna/Shintomi three (3) heating
steps are in the table below:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In the similar endeavor to manufacturing GeO2 dope (germanium oxide) preforms for low
attenuation fibers, Cocchini teaches an OVD soot process to form a germanium-doped
porous preform (Col 2 lines 10-3, Col 6 lines 40 -41, 65-67), a post soot process 3-step heating
process (dehydration (Col 5, line 29), consolidation at 1600°C (Col 5 line 10), drawing cane and applying
over-cladding with consolidation to produce a glass preform for an optical fiber
wherein a fiber draw process occurs in a draw tower (Col 10 lines 42-67, Col 11 lines 1-16).
The Examiner labels this Cocchini Process 1/Example 1. Cocchini cites another process that differs from
Cocchini Process 1/Example 1 in that different gas flows are used in the consolidation process. The
Examiner labels this Cocchini Process 2/Example 2.
Cocchini Process 1/Example and Cocchini Process 2/Example 2 had fibers drawn with a condition of fast
cooling and slow cooling , and measured attenuation values as shown in Table 1 below (Col 13 lines 28-
34) and in Table 2 below (Col 14 lines 45-52), respectively:
PNG
media_image6.png
141
379
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
136
399
media_image7.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 Cocchini Process 2, in regard to a 1600°C consolidation temperature and altered gas flows, in the consolidation process of the combination, as well as add the slow cooling process of the fiber draw of Cocchini to the fiber drawing process of the combination, to not only target and control attenuation but to also reduce the range of attenuation values/improved stability, as noted by Cocchini (Col 14 lines 53-58).
Further, Cocchini teaches the use of a commercial PK2200 measurement bench for the attenuation measurements (Col 13 lines 12-14) which is an OTDR (optical time-domain reflector) device as evidenced by Risch (2.2 Attenuation Measurements, lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to use the device taught by Cocchini to perform the measurements taught by Cocchini.
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
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741