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
Claims 1-2, recite the phrase “,using the one or more processors,” it is a nonessential and nonrestrictive information separated by commas for the purpose of this examination the steps with this phrase require the use of one or more processors.
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 2 is rejected because it is unclear what is defined as “a fiber loss threshold” and how it is determined. The US publication of the instant application indicates “a fiber loss threshold” in [0079], [0086]-[0087], [0105], [0109] however none indicate how to calculate the fiber loss threshold or what it specifically indicates. [0087], [0110] indicate examples of a fiber loss threshold number however the specification is not read into the claims and thus it remains unclear what claim 2 intends to define as the invention.
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, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migaku et al. (JP 2004284868) as cited in the machine translation provided herein and Workman et al. “ZBLAN Microgravity Study” as provided by the Applicant and referred to as Workman herein.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7, the recitation in claim 1 of “removing imperfections from a length of optical fiber comprising a fiber core and a cladding around the fiber core” is considered intended use,
Workman discloses a method of annealing a portion of a ZBLAN fiber where annealing occurs about 415 degrees Celsius, about 20 degrees Celsius above the crystallization temperature and thus less than the molten temperature.
Securing a segment of fiber in an annealing ampoule and annealing unit moving at an acceleration of .01-.001 9.8m/s2 thus moving from a first location to a second location for a first period of time of 15 seconds (page 2; 1.2.1).
Workman does not explicitly state the annealing furnace has a heater however it necessarily exists where the annealing furnace is heating (page 2; 1.2.1).
Workman discloses releasing the fiber secured in the ampoule to a quench chamber at a cooling rate of 40 ºC/sec. Workman does not explicitly recite the temperature the fiber is quenched to, or claimed second temperature. Workman discloses using water without a heating or cooling mechanism thus a skilled artisan expects the water to be room temperature of 20 ºC. the annealing temperature 415-20 ºC= 395 ºC at cooling at a rate of 40 ºC/sec thus cooling the fiber segment for a second period of time which is at some point below the crystallization temperature and above the transition temperature, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the fiber segment is released after annealing for use or to examine the results of the fiber segment as indicated by Workman (page 2; 1.2.1).
Workman discloses every step can be carried out by a processor computer (page 16 2.2-2.3).
Workman discloses the annealing furnace in ground tests operating at microgravity however fails to disclose a structure of the annealing furnace used.
Analogous art of Migaku discloses a method of annealing a glass fiber where the annealing unit itself is moved vertically down [0023], [0027], [0034] Fig 1-4. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Workman using an annealing furnace that can be moved vertically on earth to replicate the acceleration of microgravity of Workman during the annealing step. Furthermore, Workman discloses a fragment of a ZBLAN fiber in the annealing furnace. A skilled artisan would modify the vertical moving annealing furnace of Migaku to hold a fragment of a fiber instead of moving along a fiber to carryout the fragment being annealed at microgravity as taught by Workman.
The combined teachings of Workman and Migaku do not disclose the second acceleration from the second location to the first location being slower than the first acceleration.
Workman discloses annealing at microgravity. The movement of the annealing furnace back to a first position to receive another fragment to be annealed at microgravity need not proceed at the fast acceleration of microgravity and can be brought back to the first position at a slower acceleration as motivated by using less energy as motivated to have a more economical process.
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) ("Indeed, we have 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. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal.
Regarding claim 3, Workman discloses sealing the ZBLAN in an ampoule, this is considered “clamping” given the broadest reasonable interpretation and releasing for use or examination (Pages 1-2, 1.1-1.2.1)
Regarding claim 5, Workman discloses annealing a fiber segment of 25 mm lengths (Page 2; 1.2.1). This is less than the about 3 inches or about 76.2 mm of claim 5.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Workman and Migaku disclosed above as motivated to anneal more ZBLAN fiber in a single microgravity annealing process and thus more economical, absent any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, Workman does not disclose the distance of the drop, or movement between said first location to second location, of the annealing furnace however it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the location over time traveled of said annealing furnace as motivated to accomplish microgravity on earth, which would overlap with the claimed ranges of claim 6.
Conclusion
Citation of pertinent art:
The Zero Gravity Research Facility (ZGF), NASA Glenn Research Center, in Cleveland, Ohio. 1966; utilized by scientists and engineers for reduced gravity experimentation since 1966
Free fall for 143 meter 5.18 seconds= .00001g
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