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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to JP2023-092938 , with a filing date of 06/06/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 and 09/25/2024 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to an apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 09/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2022004415A1 by
Sakuma et. al. (herein “Sakuma”)
Regarding Claim 1 , Sakuma teaches:
a reservoir which is used in producing an optical fiber preform; Lines 171-173, 65“… a part of
the glass handling pipe 5 is used as raw material reservoir…”, “…a part of glass pipe 2 may be
used as a raw material reservoir…”, “ The method for producing an optical fiber base material..”
and in which a raw material containing an alkali metal element or an alkaline- earth metal
element is installed when adding the alkali metal element or the alkaline-earth metal element to
a glass pipe formed from silica-based glass by thermal diffusion; FIG. 2 Lines 164-166 ,173- “
..adding the alkali metal group to the inner surface of the glass pipe made of silica-based
glass…is added as a dopant for example KBr…is used as a raw material, “..the electric furnace…is
the heat source for the raw material…the oxyhydrogen burner …heats the glass pipe”, “…the
material is heated…to generate raw material steam…the generated raw material vapor into
inside the glass pipe.”
wherein,
the reservoir is formed from silica-based glass; Lines 171-173, 65“… A part of
the glass handling pipe 5 is used as raw material reservoir…”, “…a part of glass pipe may be
used as a raw material reservoir…
in which sum of a fluorine concentration and a chlorine concentration is from 1500 ppm to
20000 ppm; Lines 149-151, “ The glass pipe contains chlorine having an average concentration
of 0 or more and 2500 ppm or less, and fluorine having an average concentration of 1000 ppm
or more and 5000 ppm or less”. Taking the maximum ppm values for each concentration, the
sum is 7500ppm.
Regarding Claim 2, 3 - Sakuma in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakuma teaches wherein the reservoir is formed from silica-based glass;
in which the sum of the fluorine concentration and the chlorine concentration is from 3500
ppm to 18000 ppm; Claim 2
in which the sum of the fluorine concentration and the chlorine concentration is from 3500
ppm to 13000 ppm; Claim 3
Sakuma discloses this previously in Claim 1; Lines 149-151, “ The glass pipe contains chlorine
having an average concentration of 0 or more and 2500 ppm or less, and fluorine having an
average concentration of 1000 ppm or more and 5000 ppm or less”. Taking the maximum ppm
values for each concentration, the sum is 7500ppm.
Regarding Claim 4, 5 - Sakuma in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 3.
Sakuma teaches wherein the reservoir is formed from silica-based glass,
in which the chlorine concentration is 20 ppm or more; Claim 4
in which the chlorine concentration is 50 ppm or more; Claim 5
Sakuma discloses this previously in Claim 1; Lines 149-151, “ The glass pipe contains chlorine
having an average concentration of 0 or more and 2500 ppm or less.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et. al. and in further
view U.S. Patent 7,469,559 by Ball et. al. (herein “Ball”).
Regarding Claim 6 – Sakuma in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
While Sakuma discloses a reservoir and glass pipe, Sakuma does not disclose,
the reservoir includes a connecting end that is separate from the glass pipe;
and is fused and connected to the glass pipe;
In similar endeavor of producing an optical fiber preform utilizing a reservoir, diffusion of alkali by thermal diffusion, where the reservoir and glass tube are silica-based glass where the tube contains chlorine and fluorine (FIG. 2 Col 4 lines 1, 5-6, 62-63, Col 5 lines 57-58, 61-66), Ball discloses a reservoir with a connecting end that is welded to a glass tube (Col 9 lines 49-58, FIG. 5). 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 method and reservoir/glass pipe welding of Ball in the process of Sakuma, as one would be motivated to do so to first allow KBr into the reservoir to be melted and dehydrated, and then the glass pipe welded to the reservoir with flowing nitrogen, before vaporizing the KBr, as noted by Ball (Col 9 lines 47-48). A PHOSITA would know water (-OH) is detrimental in the fiber making method and dehydrating the KBr before diffusion supports elimination of water in the process.
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
Prosecution Insights