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 Interpretation
Lines 1-3 of claim 1 are interpreted as the preamble of the claim and lines 4-5 are interpreted as the body of the claim.
Applicant recites “the furnace tube” in claims 1, and 4-6, the Examiner interprets “the furnace tube” as referencing “a carbon furnace tube” in line 2 of claim 1.
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.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites an oxygen concentration of 5 ppm or more, but in claim 1, the concentration is recited as 3 ppm or more and 20 ppm or less. It can be interpreted the concentration of 5 ppm or more contains oxygen concentration values outside of the range recited in claim 1. The Examiner suggests claim 2 should recite the oxygen concentration of 5 ppm or more and 20 ppm or less to clarify the claim.
Claim 3 recites an oxygen concentration of 10 ppm or less, but in claim 1, the concentration is recited as 3 ppm or more and 20 ppm or less. It can be interpreted the concentration of 10 ppm or less contains oxygen concentration values outside of the range recited in claim 1. The Examiner suggest claim 3 should recite the oxygen concentration of 3 ppm or more and 10 ppm or less to clarify the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird et al. (US 2003/0041628A1 – hereinafter Bird) in view of Buiguez et al. (US 4,934,418).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Bird (Fig. 1 and [0018]-[0021]) discloses a drawing furnace 120 including a carbon furnace tube (“susceptor 126”) formed of graphite which is a form of carbon. Bird discloses drawing an optical fiber 110 while supplying a process gas, such as an inert gas that may be helium, nitrogen, or argon into the furnace tube. Bird ([0028]) discloses while the preform is heated, the draw furnace comprising an oxygen concentration of about 25 ppm. Bird ([0024]) discloses oxygen as a contaminant gas, but fails to disclose the oxygen concentration in the supplying gas (i.e. inert gas). However, Buiguez (Col. 2, lines 37-40) teaches a prior art supply of high purity helium comprising less than 5 ppm of oxygen. Accordingly, based on the disclosure of Bird and teachings of Buiguez, since Bird teaches 25 ppm or less of oxygen as a contaminant gas in the drawing furnace in the drawing method of Bird, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the supply of the inert gas, such as helium should have an oxygen concentration lower than 25 ppm, and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the high purity helium having an oxygen concentration of less than 5 ppm, as taught by Buiguez, could be used as the inert gas in the drawing method of Bird. This provides for the claimed supplying gas, such as helium, as claimed in claim 5, having an oxygen concentration of 5 ppm or less as a major component of inert gas into the furnace tube.
Regarding claims 2-3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the gas has an oxygen concentration of 5 ppm or less, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 5 ppm or more, as claimed in claim 2 and a range of 10 ppm or less, as claimed in claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Bird ([0026]) teaches heating the preform to a temperature ranging from 1800 degrees C to 2100 degrees C. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since the preform temperature ranges from 1800 degrees C to 2100 degrees C during drawing, for heating the preform, and therefore, an internal temperature of the furnace tube within the range of about 1800 degrees C to 2100 degrees C, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 2200 degrees C or lower.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird et al. (US 2003/0041628A1 – hereinafter Bird) in view of Buiguez et al. (US 4,934,418) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heim et al. (EP0820963A1 – hereinafter Heim).
Regarding claim 4, Bird in view of Buiguez fails to disclose the gas (i.e. helium) supplied into the furnace tube is recovered, the recovered gas is purified, and then the purified gas is supplied into the furnace tube. However, Heim (Claim 1) teaches recovering helium from an optical fiber manufacturing process and the recovering helium of the optical fiber manufacturing process, purifying the recovered gas, and introducing the purified helium gas into the optical fiber manufacturing step. Heim (abstract) further teaches the helium recovered may be refined to different purity levels, such as an intermediate purity level or high purity level. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Heim, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the gas (i.e. helium) gas supplied into the furnace tube is recovered helium, the recovered helium is purified to an appropriate level, and the purified gas is supplied into the furnace tube, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741