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 amendment to the claims filed Jul. 9, 2026 is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the rejections of Claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 that oxygen is a known contaminant during drawing and 25 ppm or less of oxygen contaminant is acceptable and supplying helium and teachings of oxygen as a known contaminant in helium supply by Buiguez, 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 while drawing, 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 comprising an inert gas as a major component, such as helium claimed in claim 5, and the inert gas having an oxygen concentration of 5 ppm or less into the furnace tube. The oxygen concentration of 5 ppm or less overlaps Applicant’s claimed oxygen concentration range of 3 ppm or more and 20 ppm or less.
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 and 20 ppm or less, as claimed in claim 2 and a range of 3 ppm or more and 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 that an internal temperature of the furnace tube is also 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, as discussed above, Bird discloses oxygen is a known contaminant during drawing and 25 ppm or less of oxygen contaminant is acceptable and supplying helium and teachings of oxygen as a known contaminant in helium supply by Buiguez. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jul. 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the combination of Bird in view of Buiguez. Applicant argues Buiguez is not combinable with Bird, since Buiguez is nonanalagous art. Applicant argues Buiguez relates to the cosmetic industry, argues Buiguez is silent as to reducing breakage frequency of an optical fiber, and states the claimed invention relates to a method of manufacturing optical fiber. Therefore, Buiguez is nonanalagous art and accordingly Bird in view of Buiguez does not render claim 1 obvious.
This argument is not persuasive. The Buiguez reference is not being used as a motivation to combine, but is being used to teach helium supply as having a specific oxygen concentration was known and accessible in the prior art. The main reference Bird clearly teaches supplying helium to the drawing furnace and teaches an oxygen concentration range acceptable in the drawing furnace of less than 25 ppm. The Bird reference teaches oxygen is a known contaminant in drawing of an optical fiber and Buiguez teaches oxygen as a known contaminant with a known oxygen concentration in Helium gas. Accordingly, since the Bird reference teaches oxygen as contaminant in drawing optical fiber and supplying of inert gas, such as helium, and Buiguez is used merely to teach oxygen as a known contaminant in helium supply in the prior art, the argument against the combination of Bird in view of Buiguez, due to Buiguez being nonanalagous is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references are silent about reducing the breakage frequency, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 over the prior art of Bird in view of Buiguez. The arguments against dependent claims 2-6 appear to hinge upon the arguments against claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner also maintains the rejections of dependent claims 2-6.
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 LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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
Prosecution Insights