DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on May 26, 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Please see typo in drawings below (i.e. “arrows 220a or 200b” should be “arrows 220a or 220b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 140a and Ls in Fig. 1, Fig. 2B arrows 220b (Note type: 200b is listed as “arrows 220a or 200b” and “fluid motions 200A and 200B”), and Fig. 4B “428”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200B/200b”has been used to designate both arrows and fluid motions (see [0028]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 2, the Examiner interprets lines 9-11 of the curing step as a description of the result of the curing step. Therefore, it is interpreted, the pumping of the inert gas and the vertical drawing of the cane assembly are not positively recited and therefore, not required in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyngsoe et al. (US 2019/0011634A1 – hereinafter Lyngsoe) in view of Dawes et al. (US2003/0230118A1 – hereinafter Dawes), Ishida et al. (WO2005/116159A1 – hereinafter Ishida), and Cheng et al. (CN111995239A – hereinafter Cheng).
For the Ishida reference the Examiner is referencing the attached machine translation.
For the Cheng reference the Examiner is referencing the attached machine translation.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lyngsoe (Fig. 12, [0127], [0150]-[0151]) discloses a method comprising inserting pressure tubes 164 (corresponding to pressurization tubes) into preform tubes 161a (corresponding to a cane) having elongate holes at a first end of a preform (corresponding to a cane assembly). Lyngsoe ([0104]) discloses applying a sealing material to the elongate hole (corresponding to a region of the first end of the cane). Lyngsoe discloses the sealing material as glue, epoxy, grease, and/or other pliable sealing material. Based on the disclosed sealing material, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the applying of the sealing material resulting in a liquid seal at the first end of the cane, through which the inserted pressurization tubes extend.
Lyngsoe fails to disclose the sealing material is an addition-curing silicone elastomer-based material and the curing of the sealing material including the claimed curing temperatures and time in claims 4 and 13. However, Dawes ([0040] and Fig. 8) discloses an epoxy, a frit material, or a glass sealing material used to fit glass tube into a hole of preform and Ishida (abstract and [0016]) discloses a glass sealing material that comprises a silicone resin and refractory filler material, such as silica. Ishida ([0018]) teaches heating and curing the sealing material composition to form the bonding surface. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Dawes and Ishida, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a glass sealing material to fit and seal the glass tube into a hole (i.e. hollow tube) of a preform, such as a known prior art glass sealing material of silicone resin with silica (corresponding to a an addition-curing silicone elastomer-based material). In addition to the heating and curing disclosed by Ishida above, Ishida ([0047]) teaches curing the sealing material to the object to be sealed at a temperature ranging from 140 degrees C to 300 degrees C for 1 to 120 minutes. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of Lyngsoe in view of Dawes and Ishida after applying the sealing material curing the sealing material by applying heat to the sealing material at a curing temperature ranging from 140 degrees C to 300 degrees C for 1 to 120 minutes, and the curing resulting in a pressure seal, at the first end of the cane, through which the inserted pressure tubes extend, and a cane assembly (i.e. preform) comprising an arrangement of the cane (i.e. preform tubes), the inserted pressurization tubes, and the cured material resulting from the inserting, applying and curing steps. The Examiner notes the obviousness of the curing temperature of 140 degrees C to 300 degrees C for 1 to 120 minutes overlaps the claimed curing temperature between 70 and 200 degrees C for a curing duration that is less than 2 hours, as claimed in claim 4, and the curing temperature between 80 and 150 degrees C, and less than 20 minutes, as claimed in claim 13.
Lyngsoe ([0099]) discloses the preform (i.e. cane assembly) may be drawn in a fiber drawing tower with pressure control within the respective hollow/preform tubes and ([0065]) discloses the suitable gases in the preform tubes include argon or nitrogen (corresponding to an inert gas). This provides for pressurizing the cane assembly by an inert gas in the first end of the cane through the pressurization tubes.
Lyngsoe fails to disclose pressurizing by pumping the inert gas. However, Cheng (pg. 7, last paragraph) discloses pressure control by pumping in air (i.e. a gas). Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Cheng, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the pressure control with inert gas includes pressurizing the cane assembly, by pumping inert gas into the first end of the cane through the pressurization tubes of Lyngsoe.
As discussed above, Lyngsoe ([0099]) discloses the preform (i.e. cane assembly) may be drawn in a fiber drawing tower with pressure control within the respective hollow/preform tubes, and with the teachings of Cheng, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, forming a hollow core fiber by drawing the cane under pressure from the inert gas being pumped into the first end of the cane.
Lyngsoe fails to disclose details of the drawing, such as the claimed vertically drawing the cane, by a second end of the cane, through a heated chamber. However Dawes ([0037]-[0038] and Fig. 6) teaches drawing the fiber in a furnace and drawing at the distal end of the preform in the drawing apparatus having a heat source 55. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Dawes, it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of fiber drawing disclosed by Lyngsoe including forming the HCF, by vertically drawing the cane, by a second end of the cane, through a furnace having a heat source (i.e. a heated chamber). Accordingly, the combination of Lyngsoe in view of Dawes, Ishida, and Cheng provide for the method of claim 1.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyngsoe et al. (US 2019/0011634A1 – hereinafter Lyngsoe) in view of Dawes et al. (US2003/0230118A1 – hereinafter Dawes), Ishida et al. (WO2005/116159A1 – hereinafter Ishida), and Cheng et al. (CN111995239A – hereinafter Cheng) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jiang (CN111234773A).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above, the modified method of Lyngsoe provides for curing the sealing material by applying heat to the sealing material at a curing temperature ranging from 140 degrees C to 300 degrees C for 1 to 120 minutes. This provides for heating the region where the sealing material is applied to provide for the curing.
The references fail to disclose the region is positioned within a heated chamber. However, Jiang (last line of pg. 5 to line 2 of pg. 6) teaches a silicon sealant is placed in an oven to solidify. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings of Jiang, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, for the curing by heating of the sealant material in the modified method of Lyngsoe to apply heat to the region where the sealing material is applied by placing the region in an oven (corresponding to a heated chamber).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
Claims 5-12 are 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 is discussed below.
Regarding claims 1-3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4, the combined references provide for sealing a first end of a cane assembly. However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the sealing a first end of the case assembly with the sealing material combined with the steps of causing a rolling machine to roll a container containing a silicone polymer to maintain the claimed Froude number, after rolling the container, transferring to a planetary mixer, forming a mixture with the planetary mixture, and forming the sealing material by de-aerating the mixture, as claimed in claim 1. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1.
Regarding claims 5-12, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Lyngsoe (Fig. 4 and [0060]-[0061]) discloses an embodiment including an outer cladding region 31 and a plurality of tubes including hollow tubes 32 surrounded by the outer cladding region forming a ring defining an inner cladding region and second tubular elements nested within hollow tubes 32 and a third set of tubular elements nested within respective second tubular elements. Accordingly, the cane includes an outer glass tube “non-touching tube 32” and a plurality of tubes (second and third tubular elements) as groups of tubes among the plurality of tubes nested to form a plurality of nested tubes in a first configuration, the plurality of nested tubes in the first configuration being spaced apart along, and fused to, an inner circumference of the outer glass tube. However, Lyngsoe fails to disclose pressurization tubes include a core pressurization tube and a plurality of capillary tubes, inserting and fixing the core pressurization tube within a central opening of the cane and inserting each of the plurality of pressurization capillary tubes within one of the plurality of tubes of the cane, as claimed in claim 5. Claims 6-12 depend from claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 2023/0207150) (Example 1a) discloses glass frit and PDMS mixed in a planetary mixer.
Simonsen (US 2018/0339931) ([0063]) teaches hole/slot sealing material, such as epoxy or similar sealing material.
Hori (JP2010235693A) (pg. 4) teaches silica and silicone mixed with a planetary mixer and three rolls.
Mihashi (JP2004292250A) ([0004]) teaches a sealing composition comprising silicone or epoxy mixed with silica particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights