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Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “210” is labeled in Fig 2A but not identified in the specification or drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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) 1-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bird et al. (US 20030041628).
Regarding claim 1, Bird discloses a method of operating a furnace system, the method comprising:
injecting one or more inert gases into a cavity defined by a muffle, the muffle comprising an upper muffle extension and a lower muffle extension, as labeled in Figure 1 below.
The one or more inert gases are injected via an inlet port (159) at a bottom portion of the lower muffle extension such that the one or more inert gases flow within the cavity in a first direction (depicted by arrows PG);
drawing an optical fiber preform (102/102a) within the cavity in a second direction to form an optical fiber on reel (80), the first direction being opposite to the second direction (see Fig 1); and releasing the one or more inert gases from the cavity via an outlet port at a top portion of the upper muffle extension of the muffle (see Fig 1 [0018]- [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
852
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the one or more inert gases flow within the cavity in the first direction from the inlet port to the outlet port at an upstream end of the upper muffle as depicted in Fig 1 by PG arrows [0018].
Regarding claim 3, the first direction of the purge gas and the second direction of the drawing optical fiber are parallel (See Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Bird discloses injecting one or more screen gases (SG) into a screen region (160) of the furnace system to prevent one or more external gases from entering the cavity [0019].
Regarding claim 5, Bird discloses the screen region comprises an aperture formed with door members (170a,b). Bird does not specifically state, “opening the aperture when the preform is being drawn within the furnace system and closing the aperture when the preform is not being drawn.” However discloses closing the doors when the furnace is idle [0023]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the furnace being idle means the preform is not being drawn.
Regarding claim 6, the doors around the fiber, or aperture, create a seal when closed given the broadest reasonable interpretation [0023].
Regarding claim 7, the inlet port (159) comprises a porous element (154) [0018], the determination of the pore size of the porous element (154) is a step of controlling a flow rate of the one or more inert gases injected into the cavity by controlling the flow of the one or more inert gases through the porous element [0018]/[0020].
Regarding claim 9, Bird suggests a pump (183) at the outlet port to move the gas upstream in a controlled manner- thus controlling the flow rate of the gas [0021]
Regarding claims 10-11, Bird discloses the process gas (PG) is a single flow rate between 10-40 SLPM [0028] thus given the broadest reasonable interpretation the PG entering the inlet port is the same PG released from the outlet port and a single flow rate.
Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. Thus Bird discloses the flowrate of one or more gas of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Bird discloses heating the cavity via a heater (136) coupled with the muffle (Fig 1) [0026].
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird et al. (US 20030041628) as applied above and further in view of Bae et al. (US 20020100296)
Regarding claim 8, Bird does not depict the inlet port (159) comprises a plurality of ports that each comprise a controlled variable opening configured to open and close, controlling a flow rate of the one or more inert gases injected into the cavity by controlling the flow of the one or more inert gases through the plurality of ports.
In an analogous art of a fiber draw furnace gas supply, Bae discloses a furnace gas supply where the inlet port comprises a plurality of inlet ports (Fig 3-6, 8) [0028], [0030]-[0031], [0037]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional gas feeding ports as motivated by substituting a known gas feeding port in Bird with a known gas feeding port of Bae because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, Bae discloses a flow regulator with an on/off control. A skilled artisan would be motivated controlling a flow rate on and off with a controlled variable opening such as a damper or cover to turn off the gas flowing in.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foster et al. (US 20040013336) discloses controlling the flow rate of the gas [0021] Bird does not specifically state a Venturi system.
Nakai (JP 63159235) plurality of inserts
US 20040050112 multiple ports
US 5160359, US 4988374, US 20040013336, US 20070022786 IRIS stopper/door mechanism
Yoshikawa et al. (US 20210094867) Yoshikawa discloses a furnace gas supply (Fig 2A-4) where the inlet port comprises a plurality of inlet ports [0040] and controlling the flow rate of the gas into the cavity by controlling the flow rate of gas into the flow channel to the plurality of ports by a controller [0041] or shape of the port (at least [0051])
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
/J.C.F/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights