DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim 7-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/23/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-6 in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-6 are directed toward an apparatus; however, many limitations are functional limitations wherein the manner of operating the apparatus is being claimed. Patentable weight is given to these functional limitations that a structural element of the apparatus has the capability to perform the instantly claimed functional limitation. See MPEP 2114.
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 3 and 5-6 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 3 Line 2-3 and claim 6 Line 4 recite “an absolute value of the offset x” which already has antecedent basis in claim 1. Please change the claim 3 and 6 iteration to “the absolute value of the offset x”.
Claim 5 recites “the burner array” wherein its parent claim recites “at least one burner array”. It is not clear if claim 5 is intended to be interpreted as only one of the at least one burner array is required for claim 5. It is recommended that “the burner array” of claim 5 is amended to “the at least one burner array”.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al (JP-H0692670-A English translation provided by Espacenet) and Shimada et al (US-20030233849-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo teaches of an apparatus for manufacturing an optical fiber preform (Line 13-17) comprising a support portion (chuck, Line 52) rotating a core rod (rod-shaped target member 1) and at least one burner array (holder 41/42) including N sets of burners including N set (N is an integer of 2, burner 31-34) provided at intervals of a distance d (Fig. 2, distance between 31 and 32) and a material ejection port (Line 55-58) moving around the core rod at a speed v in the longitudinal direction (Line 73-74) depositing on an outer periphery of the core rod (Line 15-16).
Matsuo teaches rotating the core rod (Line 52). Matsuo also does not teach a rotation speed of the support portion and the formation of a porous glass portion. In the same field of endeavor, Shimada teaches a support portion that rotated the core rod [0058] with sufficient control of the speed [0068, 95, 126] to form a porous glass portion on the outer periphery of the core rod [0070, 78]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Matsuo to have rotation speed control of their rotating support portion as well as the apparatus inherently forms a porous glass portion on the periphery of the core rod as known in the art.
Regarding the two “wherein” clauses, there is ample evidence that Matsuo’s apparatus rotates the core rod (Line 52) and longitudinally moves the burner relative to the core rod (Line 74-76, Fig. 1). The wherein clauses relates the rotation of the core rod and longitudinal movement of the burner to a rotation number comprises an arbitrary natural number and an offset. The wherein limitations are functional limitations inherent to the prior art that rotates the core rod and longitudinally moves the burner array. See MPEP 2114(I).
Regarding claims 2-3, depending from claim 1, x is an offset that is a function of N. Matsuo teaches an N of 2 (Fig. 1 showing 2 burners in an array), thus satisfying the existence of x. See MPEP 2114(I).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Matsuo controls the speed v (Line 37, 46, 74, 76, 115). Modified Matsuo incorporates the rotation speed control of Shimada [0068, 95, 126].
Regarding claim 5-6, depending from claim 1, Matsuo teaches the burner array is capable of repeatedly performing the movement from one end of the core rod to the other end of the core rod (Line 60-66). Regarding the latter half of claim 5 and the entirety of claim 6, the rotation angle of the core rod in a first initial phase and the second initial phase relative to the offset falls under operation of the apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), see MPEP 2114(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
JP-H11116263-A, JP-2004238228-A, US-20070169514-A1, JP-4467197-B2, US-20180050951-A1 teaches rotating core rod and moving burner array longitudinally relative to the core rod
US-20150360992-A1 teaches rotating core rod and moving burner array reciprocating longitudinally relative to the core rod
JP-2002137924-A, JP-2006248880-A teach of plurality of burners that move at the same speed/interval until the end of the core rod
US-8516855-B2 teaches rotation control relative to longitudinal travel of the burner
WO-2017188660-A1 teaches control of the interval distance of the burner array
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights