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 without traverse of claims 1-12, 16 in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Objections to Drawings and Specification
The drawings and or specification are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4a” and “4b” have been used to designate both pressure plate and pressure disk (see [0095]/[0098] of specification filed in application).
[0104] of the specification filed in the supplication recites “24” Examiner believes it is meant to be “24b”
The drawings and or specification are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “5a” and “5b” have been used to designate both buffer washer and buffer disk (see [0105] of specification filed in application).
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 1 is rejected as being indefinite because it appears to recite a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite. It is unclear if the limitations in the parentheses in claim 1 are intended to further limit the composite, or composite body.
Claim 1 recites, “heating at a sintering temperature in a heating zone to form the tubular quartz glass composite body (100; 110) and using a holding device which is suitable for holding the composite body at least temporarily with a vertically oriented longitudinal axis of the substrate tube in the heating zone; wherein a holding device is used which comprises a holding element which is produced in a forming step in a holding area of the substrate tube.”
It is unclear what the holding element precisely consists of, for the purpose of this examination any element capable of holding a substrate tube during sintering meets this claim limitation however it remains indefinite what, “a holding element which is produced in a forming step in a holding area of the substrate tube.” Means. The forming step is unclear and how a holding eleme3nt is to be produced during such step is not clear.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 is also rejected as being indefinite because it is part of a method but recites no active steps. It recites a measurement but no step or tool of measuring. For a process claim, the general rule is that the claim is not subject to the markedly different analysis for nature-based products used in the process. This is because the analysis of a process claim should focus on the active steps of the process rather than the products used in those steps
Claims 2-12 and 16 are rejected as being indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
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) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funakoshi (US 20210088715) and Bennett (US 20230121772).
Regarding claim 1, Funakoshi discloses a method for producing a tubular quartz glass composite body in an external deposition method (Fig. 10), comprising the following method steps:
providing a substrate tube, peripheral glass portion (20), which has a continuous through-opening running coaxially to a longitudinal axis of the substrate tube, a substrate tube outer diameter, a substrate tube inner diameter, a substrate tube outer jacket surface, a substrate tube inner jacket surface, and a substrate tube wall having a wall thickness (see all of peripheral glass portion (20) in Fig. 10;
rotating the substrate tube about an axis of rotation running coaxially with or parallel to the longitudinal axis of the substrate tube as depicted by arrow S5;
depositing particles on the outer jacket surface of the substrate tube by means of at least one deposition burner (71), forming a composite from the substrate tube and a soot body (Fig 10 ST 73) [0050]-[0051]; and,
Funakoshi discloses sintering the composite by heating at a sintering temperature in a heating zone of a furnace to form the tubular quartz glass composite body [0051]
Funakoshi fails to disclose the deposited material being SiO2 and sintering furnace structure for an optical fiber preform (Fig 9A-B).
In an analogous art of sintering an optical fiber preform, Bennett discloses OVD for an optical fiber preform with SiO2 being the deposited composite and sintering using a holding device for holding the composite body with a vertically oriented longitudinal axis of the substrate tube at least Fig 4 and 9 and [0074]. Bennett discloses holding the preform composite in a heating zone with a holding device within handling structure (404) [0048], [0074] which comprises a holding element which is necessarily produced in a forming step in a holding area of the substrate tube because it surrounds the area of the substrate tube, or disclosed bait rod [0047] and is within the SiO2 soot deposition of 300, or 900 [0048], [0074]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit SiO2 soot and use the sintering device taught in the art as motivated to manufacture an optical fiber.
Regarding claims 2-3, the combined teachings of Funakoshi with the holding element of Bennett appears produced in a forming step in a holding area of the substrate tube because it surrounds the area of the substrate tube, or disclosed bait rod [0047] and is within the SiO2 soot deposition of 300, or 900 [0048], [0074] and also depicts the soot being deposited before the holding element (Fig 3). Furthermore, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) thus, selection of any order of performing process steps of covering the holding element before or after soot deposition is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Bennett discloses the tube of cladding or core rod withing the soot made of silica [0061]. Each has a material specific viscosity at the sintering temperature.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funakoshi (US 20210088715) and Arai (US 20190177204)
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Funakoshi discloses a method for producing a tubular quartz glass composite body in an external deposition method (Fig. 10), comprising the following method steps:
providing a substrate tube, peripheral glass portion (20), which has a continuous through-opening running coaxially to a longitudinal axis of the substrate tube, a substrate tube outer diameter, a substrate tube inner diameter, a substrate tube outer jacket surface, a substrate tube inner jacket surface, and a substrate tube wall having a wall thickness (see all of peripheral glass portion (20) in Fig. 10;
rotating the substrate tube about an axis of rotation running coaxially with or parallel to the longitudinal axis of the substrate tube as depicted by arrow S5;
depositing particles on the outer jacket surface of the substrate tube by means of at least one deposition burner (71), forming a composite from the substrate tube and a soot body (Fig 10 ST 73) [0050]-[0051]; and,
Funakoshi discloses sintering the composite by heating at a sintering temperature in a heating zone of a furnace to form the tubular quartz glass composite body [0051]
Funakoshi fails to disclose the deposited material being SiO2 and sintering furnace structure for an optical fiber preform (Fig 9A-B).
In an analogous art of sintering an optical fiber preform, Arai discloses OVD for an optical fiber preform with SiO2 being the deposited composite and sintering using a holding device [0047]-[0051]. Arai discloses a holding device comprising a holding element (42) is considered an expansion of the substrate tube as it surrounds the substrate tube area as depicted in at least Fig. 3A [0021], given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Arai further discloses a constriction of the substrate tube for the holding element to hold the support rod with constrictions 5Aa as depicted in at least Fig. 5A-6.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit SiO2 soot and use the sintering device holder taught in the art as motivated to manufacture an optical fiber.
Regarding claim 6, Arai suggests a constriction of the substrate tube for the holding element to hold the holding area with constrictions 5Aa as depicted in at least Fig. 5A-6.
Regarding claims 5 and 8-9, MPEP 2144.04 states In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the dimensions of the optical fiber substrate tube as motivated to obtain the desired size optical preform.
Regarding claim 10, due to the indefiniteness of the term “preferably” no limitations thereafter are actually required in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Arai discloses the tube and soot made of silica, or partly quartz Arai [0002]. Each has a material specific viscosity at the sintering temperature.
Regarding claim 16, Arai discloses the constrictions 5Aa as depicted in at least Fig. 5A-6 are depicted as indentations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
None of the prior art disclosed herein discloses or makes obvious making a constriction or taper of the substrate tube by softening an upper substrate tube end together with a shaped body placed thereon, against which the upper substrate tube end rests, and bending the upper substrate tube end inward under the influence of the weight of the shaped body.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20230121772 [0048] sintering in heating zone holding device 404 Fig. 4 shows suitable for holding composite vertically, and holding device (point arrow in Fig.4) necessarily produced in a forming step in a holding area of the substrate tube because composite is deposited thereon.
CN 104238001 Bookbinder Fig 2 shows sintering
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