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 .
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.
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]).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant indicates claim 1 recites "a muffle, the muffle comprising an upper muffle extension and a lower muffle extension, wherein the one or more inert gases are injected via an inlet port at a bottom portion of the lower muffle extension." Bird does not disclose this feature.
The basis for Applicant’s argument is that the Specification indicates, the "upper muffle extension 115" and "lower muffle extension 120" are distinct structural extensions of the muffle 112, each being an "extended hollow cylindrical structure further defining and forming the cavity 111." [0030]. These are not arbitrary segments of a single muffle tube; they are structurally distinct components that together with the muffle 112 define the cavity.
Applicant argues the Examiner's annotation of Bird's Figure 1 to label regions as "upper muffle" and "lower muffle" is an after-the-fact construction that reads the claim language onto portions of Bird's unitary structure-a structure that Bird does not characterize or describe as having distinct upper and lower extensions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the claims recite a muffle with structurally distinct upper and lower extensions, not merely a single tube with arbitrarily designated upper and lower regions.
In response to this argument, MPEP 2111 indicates CLAIMS MUST BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATION
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description."
The claim limitations of claim 1 does not indicate any structural difference between the muffle and the muffle extension. This is even supported by Applicant’s arguments providing limitations from ¶[0030] of the specification of the present application and not claim limitations. The specification is NOT read into the claims. The present claim just requires a muffle and lower muffle extension. Again, there is no structural requirement of these being separate or integral. Prior art Bird discloses the method steps of;
“one or more inert gases are injected via an inlet port 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; drawing an optical fiber preform within the cavity in a second direction to form an optical fiber, the first direction being opposite to the second direction; 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.” As indicated in the rejection above.
There is no requirement that Bird must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.c., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 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). As such, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR /nt’/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
Applicant argues Bird does not disclose the inlet port at a "bottom portion of the lower muffle extension,"
In response to this argument, Examiner disagrees, Bird's gas inlet (159) is located at the bottom of the furnace assembly considered the muffle and the inlet (159) is at what is considered “the bottom” of the lower muffle extension/ or 150 as cited in [0018]-[0020], FIG. 1.
Applicant argues the rejection of claim 5 states,i t would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the furnace being idle means the preform is not being drawn." Thus not anticipation rejection.
In response to this argument, Bird states “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. The word “obvious” here is not being used to modify the method of Bird. There is no motivation changing the method of Bird, it simply indicates that Bird is stating when the furnace is idle, or not in use the doors are closed, thus meeting claim 5.
Applicant argues claim 8 recites that "the inlet port comprises a plurality of ports that each comprise a controlled variable opening configured to open and close," and "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. Applicant argue’ s Bae's on/off control is not the same as a "controlled variable opening configured to open and close" that controls flow rate by modulating the opening size, as required by claim 8.
In response to this argument, Examiner nor claim 8 requires a variable opening configured to open and close (e.g., an iris, an expandable and collapsible opening) that may have a controllable diameter thus this argument is moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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