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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 and 21-25 in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant has elected a purge gas of helium. This is not found persuasive because the species pointed out by Examiner in the restriction of 02/12/2026 are:
Processing an optical fiber with helium and a protective polymer coating
Processing an optical fiber with helium without a protective polymer coating
Processing an optical fiber with hydrogen
Processing an optical fiber with neon
Processing an optical fiber with deuterium
Applicant amended the claims such that only the species of helium is required by the claims 1-8, 11-13, and 21-25 are generic to the helium species. The amendments and arguments are persuasive and the elected species is drawn to processing an optical fiber with helium, claim 1 being generic to the other claims.
Specification
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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 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.
(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 and 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henningsen et al. Applied Optics, “Dynamics of gas flow in hollow core photonic bandgap fibers” section 2. Experiment, Fig 1) 2008 referred to as Henningsen herein after.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Henningsen discloses a method of processing a glass(Section I, Introduction) hollow core fibers (“HC-PBG” and “HC-PBF” referred to by Henningsen) the method comprising;
Placing a central portion of the fiber into an interior pressure vessel, or vacuum box (section 2. Experiment, Fig 1).
Arranging end portions of the fiber outside the vacuum vessel through vacuum tight seals (section 2. Experiment; line 7)
Admitting gas into the purge vessel, or vacuum vessel, the gas permeating through the fiber material the purge gas pressure is necessarily greater than a partial pressure of the initial content of the purge gas in the cladding because the gas diffuses into the core and is considered to push an initial gas content towards ends of the fiber given the broadest reasonable interpretation (section 2. Experiment; lines 3, 27-31, section 3. Theory The flow of a homogeneous gas through the fiber core is driven by the pressure gradient).
A predefined threshold can be considered any threshold at which the purge time ends
The term “predefined threshold” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predefined threshold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The predefined threshold must be defined previous relative to something.
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:
Claim(s) 2 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henningsen et al. Applied Optics, “Dynamics of gas flow in hollow core photonic bandgap fibers” section 2. Experiment, Fig 1) 2008 referred to as Henningsen herein after.
Regarding claim 2, Henningsen discloses (section 2. Experiment; lines 3, 27-31, section 3. Theory The flow of a homogeneous gas through the fiber core is driven by the pressure gradient). However fails to recite a predefined threshold of .1 to 10% of the initial gas content.
Henningsen discloses adding a purge gas to the hollow core by diffusing through the cladding, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cease adding the purge when the core is full and minimize the amount of purge gas residing in the cladding.
Regarding claim 22, Henningsen discloses 1.4 to 10 m (section 2. Experiment; line 25) overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henningsen et al. Applied Optics, “Dynamics of gas flow in hollow core photonic bandgap fibers” section 2. Experiment, Fig 1) 2008 referred to as Henningsen herein after as applied above and further in view of Rudolph (US 20130202006)
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Hennington fails to recite the gas with which the hollow core fiber is filled.
In an analogous art of gas filled hollow core fibers Rudolph discloses using Helium as a filling gas [0054], [0068]. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use helium as a buffer gas as motivated to mitigate thermal effects adjust molecular relaxation rates, provide for energy transfer, or combinations thereof and seal the ends of the gas filled hollow core fiber to maintain the gas filled core (claim 9)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, 12-14, 21 and 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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