DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 1-2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in line 4 ”where”, when it should be “wherein”.
Claim 2 has a comma between “recovering” and “the at least one inert gas”.
Claim 9 recites “the method(600)the method” and “by way of by way of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7 and 11-14 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.
Claim 7 recites a ratio of a first distance to a second distance. It is unclear how these distances are measured.
Claim 11 recites extracting the optical fiber 124 from a bottom end of the cooling tube. However, claim 11 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a cooled bare optical fiber after cooling in the cooling tube and the optical fiber is obtained only after coating. Thus, it is unclear how the optical fiber is extracted from the bottom end of the cooling tube.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the first temperature" and “the second temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites a first temperature and a second temperature. It is unclear what is being referenced for the temperature, i.e. the fiber, the gas, the furnace, etc? Because of the indefiniteness of this claim, it cannot be examined on its merits at this time.
Claim 13 recites a third distance and a fourth distance. It is unclear how the distance is measure. Because of the indefiniteness of this claim, it cannot be examined on its merits at this time.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the third distance", “the at least one input port”, and “the fourth distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danzuka et al. (JP -H06271330 machine translation provided). Danzuka teaches a method for drawing an optical fiber, the method comprising melting a cylindrical glass preform in a draw furnace to obtain a bare optical fiber (2nd ¶ p.4), cooling the bare optical fiber inside a cooling tube (3rd ¶ p. 4, fig. 1), the cooling tube comprising an inlet port 16 and a recovery port 17, supplying an inert gas (helium) inside the cooling tube from the inlet port, recovering the inert gas from the recovery port (4th ¶ - 6th ¶ p.5), wherein the recovery port is positioned at an intermediate position along a longitudinal axis of the cooling tube in between a bottom end and a middle point of the cooling tube (see 17 in fig. 5), and coating the cooled bare optical fiber to obtain an optical fiber (3rd ¶ p.4).
Regarding claim 7, as can be seen in figure 5, the ratio of the distance from the top of the cooling tube to the recovery port 17 to the distance from the recovery port to the bottom of the recovery tube is much greater than 1.5.
Regarding claim 10, Danzuka teaches inserting the bare optical fiber from a top end of the cooling tube at a first temperature, prior to cooling the bare optical fiber (figures 1-2, 4-5, [0014]).
Regarding claim 11, Danzuka teaches extracting the bare optical fiber from a bottom end of the cooling tube at a second temperature upon coating the cooled bare optical fiber (figures 1-2, last ¶ on p. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Danzuka teaches the fiber has a temperature of 600°C after exiting the cooling tube, which is at least 60% less than the entering temperature about 2100°C ([0014]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Danzuka shows in figures 4 and 5 the distance from the top of the cooling tube to the recovery port is at least twice the distance from the recovery port to the bottom of the cooling tube.
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 Arslanian et al. (6,345,451). Arslanian teaches a method for drawing an optical fiber, the method comprising drawing a bare optical fiber, cooling the bare optical fiber inside a cooling tube 2 (col. 7 lines 64-66, col. 8 lines 3-5), the cooling tube 2 comprising an inlet port 5 (col. 8 lines 5-7) and a recovery port 15’ (col. 8 lines 31-34), supplying an inert gas (helium) inside the cooling tube from the inlet port (col. 8 lines 8-10), recovering the inert gas from the recovery port (fig. 1, col. 8 lines 7-10, 44-46, 60-65), wherein the recovery port is positioned at an intermediate position along a longitudinal axis of the cooling tube in between a bottom end and a middle point of the cooling tube (fig. 1), and coating the cooled bare optical fiber to obtain an optical fiber (col. 7 lines 66-67). Arslanian doesn’t offer specifics for the drawing of the optical fiber. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the furnace of Arslanian to melt a cylindrical glass preform in the draw furnace in order to obtain a bare optical fiber, as it is a well-known process.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danzuka et al. (JP-H06271330 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Filippov et al. (2011/0289980) and Carlton et al. (2017/0101336). Regarding claims 2-4, Danzuka is silent regarding a chocking device. Filippov teaches drawing an optical fiber from a draw furnace and cooling the bare optical fiber in a cooling tube ([0025]). Filippov further teaches preventing ambient air ingress into the cooling tube by providing a small opening at the bottom of the cooling tube, and suggests an opening with a diameter of 0.5mm - 5mm ([0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2mm - 4.9mm. Filippov doesn’t specify a specific choking device; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have Carlton similarly teaches drawing an optical fiber in a draw furnace, cooling the drawn fiber in a cooling tube ([0022]), the cooling tube 22 comprising a recovery port 50 positioned above the bottom of the cooling tube for recovering an inert gas (fig. 2, [0024], [0028]). Like Filippov, Carlton also teaches preventing ambient air ingress into the cooling tube, and suggests a choking device (i.e. adapter tube 98) disposed at a bottom end of the cooling tube ([0025]), the choking device comprising a length of 2.54cm – 25.4cm ([0028]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10cm – 50cm. As can be seen in figures 1-2, the choking device is installed, and thus, provides choking of the cooling tube prior to recovering of the inert gas from the recovery port. Carlton teaches the choking device can also lead to an increase in purity of the recovery stream of the recovery port. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided choking of the cooling tube using a choking device, with an exit portion having a diameter of 0.5mm - 5mm or with a length of 2.54cm – 25.4cm, at the bottom of the cooling tube of Danzuka, so as to prevent the ingress of ambient air and preserve the purity of the recovery stream of inert gas, as taught by Filippov and Carlton.
Regarding claim 5, the chocking device of Carlton appears to have a converging-diverging nozzle shape, wherein a conical entrance 106 provides for convergence, and the exit end of tube 98 opens into housing 62 (fig.2).
Regarding claim 6, Carlton further teaches the arrangement of choking device allows for the recovery of at least 95% of the inert gas from the recovery port ([0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Filippov teaches suctioning out the inert gas trhough a recovery port 25 using a vacuum pump ([0022]), while supplying the inert gas through a inlet port 16 ([0023]). Carlton also teaches recovering the inert gas through the recovery port 50 ([0024])while supplying the inert gas through an inlet ([0023]). Because there is a constant flow of inert gas into and out of the cooling tube, the inert gas is being supplied and recovered simultaneously. Thus, the time difference between supplying the inert gas and the recovering of the inert gas is less than one second.
Regarding claim 9, Filippov further teaches providing for a reduced pressure in the cooling tube, i.e in the range of 0.01-0.8atm ([0029]-[0030]), and teaches employing the necessary vacuum pump(s) to achieve the desired reduced pressure. Although the actual suction pressure of the vacuum pump was not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention to have employed any necessary suction pressure, including -250Pa to -5 Pa, for sucking the inert gas, thereby providing for a reduced pressure in the cooling tube, as taught by Filippov.
Regarding claim 15, Danzuka teaches the cooling tube has a length of 700mm ([0014]). Carlton appears to suggest a recovery port that is at a distance that is less than half the length of choking device in figure 2 (see 50 relative to 106), and with the suggested choking device length of 152mm ([0028]), the intermediate position is at least about 76 mm above the bottom of the cooling tube, which is at least 50 mm above the bottom of the cooling tube.
Conclusion
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