CTNF 18/851,926 CTNF 100479 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Priority The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to JP2022-058765, with a filing date of 03/31/2022. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests the Applicant align items cited in U.S.C 35 112b below with the Specification . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Regarding Claim 2 recites “includes a core”, “includes no core”. The Examiner understands “core ” to mean “core glass” . Examiner suggests “includes a core ” / “includes a core glass”; “includes no core”/ “includes no core glass”. Claim Objections The claims below is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion: Regarding Claims 1 : target value of the linear speed constant / target values of the a linear speed constant; that is to be a product from / that is to be a the product from; where the linear speed is decreased / where the linear speed for drawing the optical fiber is decreased. Regarding Claim 3 : on a decrease amount of the linear speed / on a decrease amount of the linear speed for drawing the optical fiber . Regarding Claim 7 : wherein the predetermined decrease amount of linear speed for determining the drawing end of the optical fiber in the determining/ wherein the linear speed for drawing the optical fiber is decreased by a predetermined amount from the target value in the determining Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1-5 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. Regarding Claim 1 recites “a predetermined condition”. It is unclear the nature of the “the predetermined condition” and whether the “predetermined conditions” is related to or corresponds to the linear speed for the drawing of the optical fiber, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands the predetermined condition to be any predetermined condition that is satisfied to determine a drawing end of the optical fiber. Regarding Claim 3 recites “in the past”. It is unclear the nature of the timeframe of “in the past”, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands “in the past ” to mean any timeframe of any time duration, that occurs before producing an optical fiber by said method of the instant application. Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 recite “the drawing end”. It is unclear if “the drawing end” is the physical end of the preform from which the fiber is drawn, or the end of the event of drawing fiber, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands “the drawing end” to mean the end of the event of drawing fiber. Examiner suggests “the drawing end” / “the end of the drawing”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by JP2010013328A by (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) (as submitted in the IDS dated 09/27/2024) by Takamizawa (herein “ Takamizawa ”) Regarding Claim 1 – Takamizawa teaches method for producing an optical fiber, the method comprising, drawing an optical-fiber base material while heating and softening the optical-fiber base material to produce a part of the optical fiber to be a product; [0006], lines 44-46, “An optical fiber manufacturing method…includes a drawing step of manufacturing an optical fiber of a part to be a product by drawing an optical fiber preform while heating and softening the optical fiber preform, and the optical fiber. and determining whether a predetermined condition is satisfied to determine a drawing end of the optical fiber that is to be a product from the optical-fiber base material; [0006], lines 46-48, “A drawing end determination step for determining whether the drawing of the optical fiber of the effective portion as a product in the base material satisfies a predetermined condition…” wherein, in the drawing, a linear speed for drawing the optical fiber is controlled with a target value of the linear speed constant; [0025], FIG. 2 “The rotational speed of the capstan 13 (i.e. the linear speed for drawing) is controlled…”. FIG. 2 illustrates a constant line speed over length A of the optical fiber preform. and in the determining, when the linear speed is decreased by a predetermined amount from the target value, the drawing end of the optical fiber is determined; [0032], lines 225- 237, “Fluctuation pattern of the drawing speed of the optical fiber G2;…That is during drawing of the effective part A…the tension increases and the drawing speed decreases immediately after switching to the noneffective part B…increases the linear velocity as a reaction. This is a characteristic variation pattern when the effective part A is switched to the non-effective part B. The control unit 23 detects the drawing speed…and this fluctuation pattern of the detection speed is a characteristic that occurs when the optical fiber preform G is switched from the effective part A to the non-effective part B. It is determined whether or not the linear velocity fluctuation pattern matches.”. The above is noted as condition 3 to be met; [0033], lines 239-340, “The control unit 23 automatically determines a time point when all the conditions (1) to (3) are met and a predetermined time of about 1 minute has passed, as a timing for shifting to the drawing 240 end work.” Hence, it can be interpreted that the linear speed decreased by an amount relative to the predetermined condition of the fluctuation pattern (target) to determine the end of drawing. Regarding Claim 2 -Takamizawa in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Takamizawa teaches wherein the optical-fiber base material includes, an effective portion that is a central portion in a longitudinal direction and that includes a core; [0028], lines 200-201, FIG. 2 element A, “Then, the drawing speed is increased to a predetermined value before the drawing of the effective part A, which is the effective part having the core part C, and becomes the product…” and an ineffective portion that is an end portion in the longitudinal direction and that includes no core; [0029], lines 205-206, FIG. 2 element B, “] When the drawing of the effective part A having the core part C is finished, the non-effective part B that is not a product..,” FIG. 2 illustrates element B does not a core, C. and in determining, the drawing end of the optical fiber is determined further in consideration of a remaining length of the effective portion of the optical-fiber base material; [0030], “ (1) The remaining length control unit 23 of the optical fiber preform G is configured so that the remaining length (Lo-L) of the optical fiber preform G is equal to or less than the set preform remaining length Ls… It is determined whether or not (Lo−L ≦ Ls). Here, the set base material remaining length Ls is a base material length…as an ineffective part B of the optical fiber base material. Lo is The base material length at the start, L is the base material length used for drawing”. As effective portion A of the base material length is part of the base material length used for drawing in condition (1), the effective portion A of the base material length is considered in the determining. Regarding Claim 4 – Takamizawa in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Takamizawa teaches wherein the drawing step, by controlling at least one of a feeding amount of the optical-fiber base material; an output of a heating element of a heating furnace for heating the optical-fiber base material; a speed of a capstan, or a speed of a winding-up bobbin; [0011], lines 72-73, [0027], lines 187- 191, FIG. 1, “A heating furnace for heating the base material, a feeding means for sending the optical fiber base material to the heating furnace…”, “The optical fiber manufacturing apparatus 1 having the above structure is provided with a control unit (control means) 23. The control unit 23 includes a feeding unit 5, a gas supply unit 21, a heating element 3, a cooling device 6, a die 8, a cutter 12, a tray 9, an ultraviolet irradiation device 10, a capstan 13, dancer rollers 18 and 19, and a winding bobbin 21. , 22 are controlled ”. FIG. 1, element 23 is the control unit which controls the items in the instant claim. the linear speed for drawing the optical fiber at the winding-up bobbin is controlled with the target value of the linear speed constant; the linear speed for drawing the optical fiber with a target value and constant linear speed is taught by Takamizawa previously in Claim 1. [0026], “a capstan (take-out means) 13 for taking up the coated optical fiber G2, and dancer rollers 19, 20 And winding bobbins 21 and 22 for winding the optical fiber G2.” A PHOSITA would know the winding of the coated fiber on a winding bobbin is controlled by the drawing speed of the optical fiber (the speed of capstan) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-fti The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-20-02-fti This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 07-21-aia AIA Claims 3 an d 5 is/a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taka mizawa an in furt her view of PGPUB 20050257569A1 by Lee et. al. (herein “ Lee ”). Regarding Claim 3 - Takamizawa in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Takamizawa teaches wherein in the determining, a condition for determining the drawing end of the optical fiber is determined; Takamizawa teaches this limitation of the instant claim in Claim 1. based on a decrease amount of the linear speed of the optical-fiber base material; Takamizawa teaches this limitation of the instant claim in Claim 1. While Takamizawa teaches a predetermined fluctuation pattern that, as one known in the art would know a predetermined process value of any kind arises from past experiences and data, Takamizawa does not explicitly disclose, drawn in the past and an inspection result of the optical fiber obtained from the optical-fiber base material. In a similar endeavor of controlling drawing speed while drawing optical fiber, Lee teaches a drawing speed control method where storing data representative of a drawing speed of an optical fiber at intervals of a sampling period is performed as well as checking a result (inspection) of the present drawing speed to assess if the drawing speed is in a stable or unstable range [0022] . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use past drawing speed data and checking a result of the present drawing speed as in the method of Lee in the end of drawing method of Takamizawa, as one would be motivated to do so for the common industrial purpose of process control ( process data checked against historical process data) and efficiency. It has been repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. And because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. in re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983); See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Regarding Claim 5 – Takamizawa in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Takamizawa teaches , the predetermined decrease amount of the linear speed for determining the drawing end of the optical fiber in the determining; Takamizawa teaches this limitation of the instant claim previously in Claim 1. While Takamizawa teaches linear speed decreased by an amount relative to the predetermined condition of the fluctuation pattern (target) to determine the end of drawing (“amount”), Takamizawa does not disclose an amount such that it is set between 0.5% to 3% of the target value. Lee teaches controlling the fiber drawing speed via the capstan ([0037]) in the process of drawing the fiber by controlling the feed rate of the preform. The fiber preform feed rate has a range of slope where the fiber feed rate is not adjusted, and outside this slope range, the feed rate is adjusted and the fiber drawing speed is also adjusted (an action is taken) based off the adjustment to the preform feed rate ([0050], [0051], FIG. 9). Lee teaches the concept of a range of values (slope of the preform feed rate in the present case) related to fiber drawing speed where no action is taken, and then action is taken when a value is outside the range of values related to the fiber drawing speed. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the invention being applied directly to fiber drawing speed and in a manner such that the action taken is end of drawing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control concept of Lee in the method of Takamizawa to provide target values for the predetermined draw speed fluctuation as one would be motivated to do so for the common industrial reason of process control and efficiency. It has been repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. And because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves . In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983); See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Further, Lee discloses control in terms of a slope variable and does not disclose the exact numerical quantification of 0.5% to 3% of the target value. This is a mere choice of terms and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the target value range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the target value range for the common purpose of process control. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT. 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 on 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. /CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/851,926 Page 2 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/851,926 Page 3 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/851,926 Page 4 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/851,926 Page 5 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/851,926 Page 6 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/851,926 Page 7 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/851,926 Page 8 Art Unit: 1741
Prosecution Insights