DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma in the second line is not necessary. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 1 recites a first glass pipe including a first portion connected to the first end of the first glass block. It also recites the first portion is connected to the first end of the cladding material. A portion is generally understood to be a part of a whole. Thus, it is unclear how the same part of the glass pipe is connected to both the glass block and the cladding material. In other words, if one end of the glass pipe is the portion, how is the same end connected to both the glass block and the cladding material. These claim limitations are not aligned with figure 7, which shows the whole (not a portion) of glass pipe 11 is connected to both the glass block and the cladding material.
Claims 2-8 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
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.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first portion of a first glass pipe)]Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagashima et al. (JP2011168464). Nagashima teaches an optical fiber preform production method comprising providing a cladding material 30 having a first end and a second end and being provided with a first hole 31, a first glass block 60 having a first end and a second end and being provided with a second hole 61, and a first glass pipe portion 40 connected to the first end of the first glass block (figure 7, [0010]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
148
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (first end of a first glass block first end of a cladding material
)]
Nagashima further teaches connecting the first glass pipe portion to the first end of the cladding material (25), after the connecting, introducing a gas into the first hole through the first glass pipe and the second hole, and gas phase processing an inner surface of the first hole ([0030]), and after the gas phase processing, inserting a core material into the first hole until a tip end of the core material abuts against the first glass block ([0031], figure 8). Nagashima further teaches after the inserting, integrating the cladding material and the core material by heating ([0027]). Although Nagashima doesn’t specify inserting a core material from the second end of the cladding material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the core material to be inserted from the second end of the cladding material, as the first end is blocked by the first glass block.
Regarding claim 2, the first glass pipe can be divided in any which way into portions that can be labelled as a first portion and a second portion, such as a top portion (first portion) and a bottom portion (second portion), both of which are connected to both the first end and second end of the first glass block.
Regarding claim 3, the cladding material is provided with a plurality of first holes 31 (see figure 7, [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, the first pipe is connected such that at least a portion of the first hole does not overlap the second hole when viewed in an axial direction of the cladding material ([0033]).
Regarding claim 6, as can be seen in figure 7, the size of the first hole 31 is greater than the size of the second hole 61. Also, the first holes has to be big enough to accommodate core rods and Nagashima teaches the second hole can be as small as just a groove ([0022]), which further suggest the first hole has a size greater than the size of the second hole.
Regarding claim 7, the method further comprises, before the gas phase processing, connecting a second glass pipe to a second end of the cladding material ([0025], fig. 6), and after the inserting and before the integrating, inserting a second glass block 70 inside the second glass pipe, and fixing the second glass block to a position abutting against a rear end of the core material ([0032], fig. 9).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagashima et al. (JP2011168464 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aikawa et al. (2013/0302001). Nagashima doesn’t specify a dummy material connected to a main body of the core material. Aikawa teaches a similar method for manufacturing an optical fiber preform comprising connecting a glass pipe (31) to a cladding tube (2) and to a block member (33), inserting a core material into the cladding tube such that a tip end of the core material abuts against the block material (33), and integrating the core material with the cladding tube ([0069]-[0073, figure 1). Aikawa further teaches the core material comprises a main body part 10 and a dummy part 11 connected to the main body part ([0068]), wherein the main body is inserted into the hole of the cladding tube and the dummy part is inserted into the glass pipe 31 (see figure 1). As can be seen in figure 1, the block material 33 also comprises a hole through which a gas is passed so as to allow gas processing of the cladding tube, while also securing the core material ([0070], [0072]), in a similar fashion as that of Nagashima. It is well known the dummy part provides for the handling of the main body of the core material. The arrangement of the block 33 and the glass pipe of Aikawa allows for the dummy part of the core material to be inserted in the glass pipe for securing, wherein the glass pipe make up the non-essential part of the preform. Such an arrangement would maximize the use of the essential (and more expensive) parts of the preform, such as the main body and cladding tube. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a dummy part, and for the alternative arrangement of a block and glass pipe, wherein the dummy part is inserted in the glass pipe, as taught by Aikawa, as it provides for maximum use of the main part of the core material, without waste.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art teaches fails to teach fixing the second glass block in the second glass pipe using a tubular glass jig disposed inside the second glass pipe and provided with a third hole, and a glass rod inserted through the third hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741