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
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/19/2026.
Applicant argues the gap g on core ovality is process-dependent and modeled by:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Applicant further argues how the gap and gradient interact functionally and thus the grouped claims are not non-distinct alternatives.
The core ovality modeling argued by Applicant is not in the claims. Applicant does not argue a special technical feature within the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: There are various typographical errors where separate words are missing spaces between them. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because line 14 recites, “peripheral core holes” for the purpose of this examination the “peripheral core holes” are presumed to refer back to “peripheral core holes” Examiner requests that Applicant correct any discrepancies between terms in the claims such that they always use the exact language of the initial term.
Drawings/Specification
The drawings and specification are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gap (g)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The “gap (g)” is in the claimed invention but that feature is not depicted in the figures. [00115]-[00116] discuss Gap G which is the gap between the center core rod and the center hole and the gap; g is the gap between the peripheral core rod and peripheral hole gap.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is drawn to the “process for manufacturing a multicore optical fiber preform”
Claim 1 includes the step of, “heating the cylinder with the plurality of core rods inserted in the respective core holes by exposing the cylinder and core rods to a heating element, thereby collapsing the cylinder onto the plurality of core rods and forming the preform” this implies that the collapsing of said cylinder onto the rods leaves no gap. Claim 1 also recites,
The “gap (g)” which is the gap between the peripheral core rod and peripheral hole gap remains .2-4mm during the heating step where collapsing starts. There is no clear definition of at what point the collapsing begins defined in the claims thus for the purpose of this examination any heating to collapse or consolidate a core in clad is considered to be where collapse starts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US 20160229733) and further in view of Takashi (JP 2015151328) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13, Nakanishi discloses a method for manufacturing a multi-core fiber (1) [0011], [0030] comprising the steps of;
Providing a cylinder of cladding glass (22)
Nakanishi discloses creating a plurality of peripheral core holes (Fig 2 ST10, holes 220 at least [0033].
Nakanishi discloses inserting core glass rods (21) (Fig. 2 ST20 at least [0034]) and
Nakanishi discloses integration of the core rods into the cladding cylinder (Fig. 2 ST20) via heating the cylinder with the core rods in the core holes by exposing to a heating element (30) and collapsing the cylinder onto the rods (at least [0035]-[0039]).
Nakanishi discloses a desirable radius difference between the peripheral core holes and peripheral core rods in radius is greater than .15mm [0054] and thus the difference in diameter between the core rod and core hole is greater than 0.3 mm. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the spacing gap between the core hole and core rod as motivated to optimize and improve position accuracy before, during and after the integration step and avoid scratching and allow cleaning as indicated by Nakanishi [0053]-[0055].
Nakanishi does not indicate the temperature gradient maintained during the heating step to collapse the preform into a fiber.
In an analogous art of manufacturing a multicore optical fiber preform (title) Takashi also discloses a rod in collapse method (page 3, second paragraph) where the temperature difference in manufacturing the preform between the points in the preform heating is can be reduced to 100K or less and avoid uneven softening (page 3; first paragraph-page 4; paragraph 6) as motivated to avoid temperature, and thus viscosity, differences and avoid uneven core rod and cladding consolidated shape from that desired by the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 6, Nakanishi discloses creating the plurality of holes 220 in the cylinder by drilling [0037]
Regarding claim 7, Nakanishi discloses the cylinder and core rods are stretched during the heating integration step as depicted by the arrow and reduction in diameter in Fig. 5
Regarding claim 8, Nakanishi is silent as to the integration temperature, Takashi discloses a suitable temperature for a multi-core optical fiber integration is 1700K (Page 3; paragraph 5). It would be further obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the integration heating temperature to collapse the cladding around the cores based on composition and size absent any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, Takashi suggests an outside cylinder of 75 mm with a center hole of 15mm is 75-15=60/2=15 thus 15mm is the thickness between the center of the center hole and peripheral hole center and 22.5 is the hole center interval (page 4; paragraph 2) 15.75<15<22.5
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US 20160229733) and further in view of Takashi (JP 2015151328) as cited in the machine translation provided herein as applied above and further in view of Ma et al. (US 20200223737)
Regarding claims 2-3, Claims 2-3 do not actually recite any active steps of the claimed process but merely a dimension of a product used in the process. Nakanishi does not indicate the precise dimensions of the outer cylinder as claimed in present claims 2-3.
In analogous art of collapsing rods, or cores in cylinders [0044], Ma discloses providing a cylinder of an outer diameter of about 200mm is conventional[0045]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nakanishi with use an outer cylinder of conventional dimension as taught by Ma.
Regarding claims 10-11, Nakanishi does not disclose the direction of draw during the heating step.
In analogous art, Ma discloses an upward draw heating step for collapse of a multi-core fiber preform with support from below via bottom collar and drawing upward (title apparatus, [0012] Fig. 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe (US 832720). Watanabe discloses a method for manufacturing a multi-core fiber (Col 1; lines 40-43) comprising the steps of;
Providing a cylinder of cladding glass (1) (Col 1; line 4, Col 2; line 28-31),
Watanabe discloses the cladding class having bores (2) along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1A-Fig. 2 Col 2; lines27-28) thus the bores are created.
Watanabe discloses inserting core glass rods (3) (Col 2; lines 29-30) and
Heating the cylinder with the core rods in the core holes by exposing to a heating element of a burner (5) and collapsing the cylinder onto the rods (Col 2; lines 32-38, Fig. 2).
Watanabe discloses a gap in diameter between the peripheral core rods and peripheral hole in a range of
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindelang 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights