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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. Claim 10, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions apparatus and method, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 04/23/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claim 10 is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 2-4 and 10 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’s preamble recites “configured to insert a glass rod into a hole” and subsequently defines “a first hole that is the hole” and “a first glass rod that is the glass rod”. This is technically fine until dependent claim 2 also recites “a second hole that is the hole different from the first hole” and “a second glass rod that is the glass rod inserted into the second hole”. This creates antecedent basis issue regarding if the preamble’s “a glass rod” and “a hole” are both singular. It is advised to omit the unnecessary language in the preamble and subsequent “the glass rod” and “the hole” accompanying language.
Claim 2 recites “a second moving portion that is a member…”, whereas claim 1 introduces “a member”. The limitation has created antecedent basis issues. The Examiner believes the “member” language is not necessary.
Claim 1 recites “a first moving portion that is a member for moving the first glass rod”; claim 3 recites “the second moving portion is the same member as the first moving portion”. There is antecedent basis issue regarding “same” and “member”. Is there actually a “second moving portion”? Is the “first moving portion” compatible to be used where the “second moving portion” is located? Does same refer the same shape? It is advised to omit “a member” and subsequent “the member” accompanying language, or clarify the intended meaning of the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the second moving portion is a member…”, whereas claim 1 introduces “a member” and claim 2 also introduces “a member”. The limitation has created antecedent basis issues. The Examiner believes the “member” language is not necessary.
Claim 10 is written to depend from claim 1; however, there are many structural limitations that are repeated creating antecedent basis issues. It is advised that the rod insertion jig is properly introduced (using the “a” article) earlier in the claim, and amend the following structural limitations with the “the” article.
Claim 10’s preamble produces “a multicore optical fiber preform”. The insertion of one rod into one hole does not produce a multicore optical fiber preform. Correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 and 5-9 are allowed.
Claims 2-4 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, a primary reason why it is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record as instantly claimed is that while the prior art Wang et al (CN-112239323-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) teaches the cladding preform with a first end includes a first hole that is the hole penetrating along a central axis of the cladding preform (cladding/sleeve 1), a first glass pipe connected to the first end of the cladding preform (tail pipe 2), a first glass rod inserted into the first hole in an axial direction (mandrel 18), a support/holding portion installed in contact with an inner surface of the first glass pipe (strip arc-shaped piece), a first moving portion that is a member for moving the first glass rod (telescopic element 9), the first holding portion has a first mounting surface (Fig. 2, upper surface of strip arc-shaped piece 3; Fig. 5 on the end close to sleeve 1); and further in view of Zhang et al (CN-112209615-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) teaches an integrated moving portion (conveyor belt 5) with support portion (limit structure 6) with holding portion (support 8) with first mounting surface (support groove 9); Amma et al (US-20200369555-A1) teaches the second glass pipe connected to the second end of the cladding preform and the hole is penetration at a position deviated from the central axis in a section perpendicular to the central axis, it does not show the combination of the support portion installed in contact with an inner surface of the first glass pipe and the support portion supports the first holding portion such that the first glass rod mounted on the first mounting surface entirely overlaps the first hole as viewed from the first direction (as illustrated in Fig. 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20080087303-A1 teaches a method for inserting multiple glass rods deviated from the central axis
US-20060216527-A1, US-5372625-A teaches cladding preform, holding portion, and multiple inserted rods
US-5917109-A teaches cladding preform, holding portion, inserted rod deviated from the central axis
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights