DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-7, 10 and 14 in the reply filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith et al. (3,534,922). Keith discloses a contactless guide comprising an inner member 32 having a plurality of ejection ports 60 capable of ejecting a gas in an outer peripheral surface (col. 2 lines 62-69), and a first flange 28a and second flange 28b (col. 2 lines 40-43) housing the inner member so as to sandwich the inner member in a first direction intersecting with an ejection direction of the gas ejected from the plurality of ejection ports, wherein at least one of the first flange and the second flange is attached to the inner member such that a gap 74 through which the gas ejected from the plurality of ejection ports passes is provided between an outer edge portion of the first flange and an outer edge portion of the second flange (col. 3 lines 1-13). Keith further teaches the outer peripheral surface of the inner member has a buffer groove extending in a circumferential direction of the outer peripheral surface, the plurality of ejection ports are provided in a bottom of the buffer groove, the buffer groove is spatially connected to the gap in the ejection direction, and the gap is located outward of the buffer groove in the ejection direction (figures 2-3, col. 2 lines 70-71). Keith teaches the width of the gap is selected depending on the thickness of the strand held within, and suggests larger gaps for thicker strands (col. 3 lines 18-30). For example for a 150 denier strand, the gap should have a width of 0.010 inch and for a 1300 denier strand, the gap should have a width of 0.25-0.30 inch. Although Kieth doesn’t specify moving the first or second flange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the first or second flanges to be movable in a direction in which a width of the gap is changed so as to accommodate the different sizes of strands being guided.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith et al. (3,534,922) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faler et al. (2009/0297722) and Ishida (2020/0180996). Keith suggest sealing a top portion of the guide (col. 2 lines 44-45), but fails to teach of a sealing member for at least one of the ejection port. Faler similarly teaches a contactless guide 24 (“non-contact mechanism”, “fluid bearing” [0020]). Faler teaches contactless guide are useful for producing optical fibers as it allows for the fiber to be redirected along other pathways, thereby allowing for additional processing of the fiber without adding height to the apparatus, such as coating and cooling of the fiber after being drawn without damage ([0003]-[0006], [0020]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a contactless guide in a manufacturing apparatus for optical fiber comprising a melting device, cooling device, and a coating device, as it would provide additional processing of the optical fiber without damage and without adding height to the overall system. Like Keith and Faler, Ishida also teaches a contactless guide for fiber comprising a member having ejection ports for ejecting gas into a channel for floating the fiber ([0011]-[0012]). Ishida teaches different arrangement of the contactless guide can be used to direct the fiber in different directions, i.e. change fiber direction by 90 degrees or by 180 degrees ([0118]). Ishida also teaches ejection of the gas through selective ports allows for control of the flow rate of the air that serves the fiber to float, as opposed to a continuous ejection opening ([0120]). Ishida employs a seal member to direct the flow of ejection gas to the desired ports ([0113]). Naturally, depending on the needed support for the fiber in the contactless guide, i.e. for changing direction by 90° or 180°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a seal member for sealing selective ejection ports so as to direct the gas to the desired ejection ports for the desired support.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith et al. (3,534,922) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faler et al. (2009/0297722) and Tanifuji et al. (CN 102898043 machine translation provided). Like Keith, Faler similarly teaches a contactless guide 24 (“non-contact mechanism”, “fluid bearing” [0020]). Faler teaches contactless guide are useful for producing optical fibers as it allows for the fiber to be redirected along other pathways, thereby allowing for additional processing of the fiber without adding height to the apparatus, such as coating and cooling of the fiber after being drawn without damage ([0003]-[0006], [0020]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a contactless guide in a manufacturing apparatus for optical fiber comprising a melting device, cooling device, and a coating device, as it would provide additional processing of the optical fiber without damage and without adding height to the overall system. However, Keith and Faler do not disclose the hardness of the contactless guide. Tanifuji teaches a guide roller for handling optical fiber should have a Vickers hardness of 1000 or more to ensure no damage to the optical fiber (abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provide a Vickers hardness of 1000 or more to the surfaces of the first and second flanges, including the outer edge portions, where it might come into contact with the fiber, so as to prevent damage to the fiber.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith et al. (3,534,922) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faler et al. (2009/0297722). Regarding claims 10 and 14, Keith teaches guiding a strand, but not an optical fiber. Faler similarly teaches a contactless guide 24 (“non-contact mechanism”, “fluid bearing” [0020]) comprising an inner member 136, and a first flange 130 and a second flange 132 housing the inner member so as to sandwich the inner member in a first direction ([0023]). Faler further teaches ejecting gas from the bearing and out through the support channel 150 (figure 5, [0022]). Furthermore, Faler discloses a manufacturing apparatus for optical fiber using the contactless guide, comprising a melting device (draw furnace 14) configured to melt an optical fiber preform in order to draw a bare optical fiber from the preform ([0017]), a cooling device configured to cool the bare optical fiber ([0020],[0028]), and a coating device configured to coat the bare optical fiber with a resin to form an optical fiber ([0030], figure 1), wherein the cooling device is configured to pass the bare optical fiber through the gap of the contactless guide, blow the gas ejected from the ejection ports against the bare optical fiber to float the bare optical fiber, and cool the bare optical fiber ([0025], [0028]). Faler further teaches a winding device 40 configure to wind the optical fiber (figure 3, [0040]), and a bottom roller 25 located between the coating device and the winding device in a path through which the optical fiber passes and configured to change a direction of the optical fiber, wherein the bottom roller is also a contactless guide (figure 3, [0034]). Faler teaches contactless guide are useful for producing optical fibers as it allows for the fiber to be redirected along other pathways, thereby allowing for additional processing of the fiber without adding height to the apparatus, such as coating and cooling of the fiber after being drawn without damage ([0003]-[0006], [0020]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a contactless guide in a manufacturing apparatus for optical fiber comprising a melting device, cooling device, and a coating device, as it would provide additional processing of the optical fiber without damage and without adding height to the overall system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 15 has incorporated the allowable subject matter of claim 4. As stated before, while the prior art teaches a channel for floating the fiber in a contactless guide that is tapered shape, the tapered shape is applied to the gap between the flanges and not to a gas flow path connecting central gas supply portion of an inner member (of the contactless guide) to ejection ports located on the peripheral surface of the inner member. As can be seen in figure 2 of Nishimori, the gas flow paths of appear to have a circular cross section and a constant inner diameter along the whole of the flow path. Thus, the prior art fails to teach gas flow paths connecting a central gas supply portion of an inner member to ejection ports on the peripheral surface thereof, the flow paths having a circular cross section and a larger inner diameter on the ejection port side than a diameter on the gas supply side.
Claim 16 has incorporated the allowable subject matter of claim 5. As stated before, while the outer peripheral member 12 of Nishimori appears to comprise of a first columnar surface and second columnar surface located with the plurality of ejection ports interposed therebetween in the first direction (axial direction, see figure 1), the prior art also fails to teach the first flange with a first housing portion defined by an inner peripheral surface facing the first columnar surface when housing the inner member, and similarly, as second housing portion (of the second flange) defined by an inner peripheral surface facing the second columnar surface when housing the inner member, wherein sealing members are provided between the respective columnar surface and the housing portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under Faler and Nishimori have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Keith.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights