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
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claim 8 has been amended. Claims 1-7 are canceled.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 3-4, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amendment, , a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsuoka (U.S. Patent 6,540,406).
The Examiner will address applicable Arguments.
Regarding Amended Claim 8 the Applicant argues that,
Okada merely shows in FIGS. 1 and 2 that the axis of rotation Ax1 is the central axis of the pulley main-body 23 and is NOT (emphasis by Applicant) supported by any member at all.
Cites paragraph [0012] of the instant application specification describing the benefits of the incorporating the elastic member.
Okada fails to disclose that the axis of rotation is supported by an elastic member.
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Amended Claim 8 the Examiner replies that,
Respectful disagreement. While Okada does disclose the axis of rotation Ax1 is the central axis of the pulley main-body 23, Okada discloses element 22 is a “pulley” [0053]. Evidentiary references from the Merriam Webster Dictionary and https://www.sciencefacts.net/pulley.html
provide definition of a pulley and provide examples of different pulleys/pulley systems, with each reference illustrating a shaft through the pulley wheel. Further, there is no requirement that Okada must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As well, prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Agreement. While Okada discloses the axis of rotation of the pulley includes a shaft (support member) as noted in a), Okada does not disclose the rotation shaft of the bottom roller being supported by an elastic member. This is the basis of the Amendment to Claim 8.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 8 – recites the term “elastic” regarding “the rotation shaft of the bottom roller being supported by an elastic member”. Examiner understands “elastic” to mean a structure that is compressible or material that is known to be compressible, and when uncompressed, returns approximately to original shape or original location. This could include, but not limited to, a spring, compressible foam, or rubber.
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 though 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20100319405A1 by Okada (herein “Okada”) in further view of Evidentiary References NPL “Merriam Webster Definition of a Pulley” and NPL “Science Facts Pulley Reference”, and in further view of U.S. Patent 6,540,406 by Matsuoka (herein “Matsuoka”).
Regarding Claim 8 – Okada teaches,
An optical fiber production method of forming an optical fiber
by coating, with a resin, a glass fiber drawn from a glass base material in a drawing furnace;
[0012] lines 1-6, [0050], lines 3-6, “An optical fiber manufacturing device of an exemplary
embodiment includes: a bare optical fiber-forming unit that forms a bare optical fiber by pulling
an optical fiber preform; a coating unit that forms an optical fiber by coating the bare optical
fiber outputted from the bare optical fiber-forming unit with a coating layer, “The optical fiber
manufacturing device 10 includes a heating furnace 14 (bare optical fiber-forming unit), a cooler
16, a coating unit 18, a resin-curing unit 20, a pulley 22 (first direction-converter)…”
the optical fiber production method comprising,
guiding the optical fiber by bringing the optical fiber into contact, at only one point, with a
bottom roller when viewed from a direction perpendicular to a rotation shaft of the bottom
roller; [0053], FIG. 2, Annotated FIG. 2. Regarding the rotation shaft, Okada discloses the axis of rotation Ax1 is the central axis of the pulley main-body 23. Okada discloses element 22 is a “pulley”. Evidentiary references from “Merriam Webster Definition of a Pulley” and NPL “Science Facts Pulley Reference” provide definition of a pulley and provide examples of different pulleys/pulley systems, with each reference illustrating a shaft through the pulley wheel. Further, there is no requirement that Okada must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As well, prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The pulley 22 is arranged such that its axis of rotation Ax1 (including the rotation shaft) and the traveling direction of the optical fiber 32 are skew (in other words, such that they are mutually perpendicular when seen in the perspective view of FIG. 2). The width W of the outer peripheral face 26 of the pulley 22 is approximately 10 mm…”. See Annotated FIG. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
981
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the bottom roller being provided directly below the drawing furnace and configured to change
a running direction of the optical fiber; [0012], lines 6-9, [0055], lines 4-8, [0022], FIG. 8,“a first
direction-converter, which is a solid body that comes into contact with the optical fiber
outputted from the coating unit and thereby changing its traveling direction”, “the contact angle
Ɵ between the optical fiber 32 and the pulley 22 (a roller) , which is the first solid body that
changes the traveling direction of the optical fiber 32 after it has been extracted from the resin-
curing unit 20, is in the range of about 10.degree. to 80.degree”, “The rotating body (roller)
constituting the first direction-converter…”, FIG. 8 illustrates first direction converter pulley 22
aligned directly below the drawing furnace.
While Okada teaches a pulley roller/shaft, wherein the pulley roller is part of a fiber drawing process
(thermal process) to draw and coat a fiber, and also has a desire to reduce vibration in the drawing
process ([0069]), decrease the eccentricity of the fiber coating as it relates to the bottom roller pulley,
change the direction of the fiber after being output from the coating device ([0056]) with the
operation of the bottom roller pulley, Okada does not disclose,
and the rotation shaft of the bottom roller being supported by an elastic member;
In an analogous endeavor of bearings with a rotational shaft targeted for precision apparatus (Col 1
lines 6-8), Matsuoka discloses a bearing assembly with rotating shaft (spindle on a motor, Col 1 lines 7-8)
that includes an elastic member fixed to the shaft to apply a predetermined preload to an inner ring of
the bearing (Col 2 lines 47-53), where heat generated by an external heat source can disrupt the
operation of the bearing (Col 1 lines 66-67, Col 2 lines 2-3). The elastic means can be a spring or rubber
(Col 2 lines 57-60). 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 spring-loaded bearing assembly of Matsuoka for
the shaft of Okada, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of
supporting a preload that does not change quickly even if the temperature of the bearing changes
whereby the bearing keeps a high-performance characteristic, and a bearing which can be used stably
even if it is in a condition in which an axial load is applied to the bearing (Col 2 lines 25-26, 31-32).
Further as the temperature increases, the movement of the elastic means a new mechanical balance is
attained without reducing the preload abruptly, whereby constant operation of the bearing is ensured
(Col 6 lines 35, 50-53). The Examiner also states that while the instant application is a method claim, the
instant limitation is a structural aspect of the rotation shaft. As such, the test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights