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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Kuwabara reference teaches the clean atmosphere in the slow cooling furnace, not in the drawing furnace. The rejection is made over obviousness, not anticipation. The 103 rejection relies on case law rationale from MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)/In re Japikse wherein the atmosphere of the known cooling furnace of Kuwabara is rearranged to be in the drawing furnace. The presented argument does not argue why the known clean environment could not or should not be replicated in the draw furnace. Furthermore, the instant claim language states “in the drawing step” in a generic “heating furnace”. The argument that the clean environment of the fiber cooling after drawing as taught by Kuwabara cannot or should not be the same as the clean environment of the fiber being drawn is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kuwabara only discloses the cleanliness count for particle size of 0.3 μm, and Kuwabara does not teach the distribution for particles sized between 0.5 μm and 1.0 μm. Kuwabara teaches that the particles have a diameter of 0.3 μm or more (Line 66) which overlaps both particle size ranges under broadest reasonable interpretation. Kuwabara’s reporting of particles applies to both instant particle size limitations and their respective count distribution. In the alternative, Kuwabara only recites the count for 0.3 μm particles (Line 319). It can be inferred that there does not exist any particles in the atmosphere larger than 0.3 μm because there is no reporting of particles larger than 0.3 μm; as such, there is less than 3,500 particles per cubic foot. From either paths of logic, the argument is moot or unpersuasive. Though not required, JP-4465932-B2 teaches the 3.5*103 particles/m3 for particles sized 0.5 μm or larger (Line 66-68), which would suffice the argued limitation because cubic meter is larger in volume than cubic foot.
Amendments successfully corrected the objections and 112b rejection previously indicated; accordingly, the objection and 112 rejection have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “clean environment”. Claim 2-3 and 5 recites “clean air”. The “clean” requirement is given broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome (JP-2010173895-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) and further in view of Kuwabara et al (JP-2010168247-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Nunome teaches a method for manufacturing an optical fiber (line 13-14) comprising a drawing step of drawing a glass base material while feeding the glass base material to a heating furnace to manufacture the optical fiber (Line 94-95, spinning furnace 3 Line 194), wherein the glass base material includes a core rod and a cladding tube into which the core rod is inserted (optical fiber core rod 5, glass tube 4, Line 199-200), wherein a support tube is bonded to an upper end of the cladding tube (dummy quartz tube 10, Line 202, Fig. 1) to communicate with a gap between the core rod and the cladding tube (Fig. 1), wherein bringing the gap and an internal space of the support tube into a state of being lower in pressure than atmospheric pressure (Line 351-352).
Nunome teaches of sealing the furnace and minimizing the concentration of oxygen in the furnace (Line 157-161) and blowing purge gas on the glass base material that diffuses into the atmosphere around the glass base material (Fig. 2/3a, Line 213-215/227-231). Nunome does not nominally teach of the atmosphere around the glass base material is made into a clean environment. In related optical fiber drawing art, Kuwabara teaches of the atmosphere around the drawn optical fiber to be clean, measuring at 100-150 particles per cubic foot for a particle of 0.3 μm (Line 66-67/313-322). Though Kuwabara does not expressly teach two fraction size ranges of the particle, Kuwabara expressly teaches a particle count that is less than the instantly claimed limitation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the cleanliness of the environment processing the glass base material to decrease the breaking frequency of the optical fiber per manufactured length for optimal manufacturing efficiency. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable 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 such as the optimized minimization of particle count for wide distribution of particle sizes through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Kuwabara nominally states that the relied upon environment/atmosphere is that of the tube furnace 23/21 in Fig. 1, instead of the instantly claimed clean environment/atmosphere around the glass base material. Kuwabara implies that the environment/atmosphere around the glass base material is the same with regards to the atmosphere/environment encompassed by furnace 13 (Line 353-356, around the glass base material). It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the clean environment/atmosphere around the drawn optical fiber as taught by Kuwabara to around the glass base material (within 1 m) to extend the clean environment that is known to decrease breaking frequency of the article to be processed/during processing and the resulting product.
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Nunome teaches blowing purge gas on the glass base material that diffuses into the atmosphere around/on the glass base material (Fig. 2/3a, Line 213-215/227-231). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use clean air as taught by Kuwabara as the purging gas that hits the glass base material of Nunome as means to prevent oxygen contamination.
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Nunome teaches a periphery of the glass base material is covered with a covering portion (seal mechanism 20) that is provided above the heating furnace (Fig. 2). Modified Nunome teaches clean air is blown from the covering portion (Line 227-231).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome (JP-2010173895-A) and Kuwabara et al (JP-2010168247-A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ohga et al (US-20080107385-A1).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 2, modified Nunome (Fig. 2) teaches the introduction of the gas that hits the glass base material at 3 locations. Nunome does not expressly teach the blown air hits the glass base material from at least two different directions. In the same field of endeavor, Ohga teaches of introducing gas/air from at least two directions [0124] (Fig. 15, gas supply portion 53). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the blown clean air to hit the glass base material from at least two different directions to create an effective seal around the glass base material as motivated by Nunome to minimize oxygen in the furnace.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunome (JP-2010173895-A) and Kuwabara et al (JP-2010168247-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al (US-20150321944-A1).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, modified Nunome teaches of the atmosphere around the glass base material is created by the introduction of purge gas (see rejection of claim 1 above). Modified Nunome is silent regarding the nominal pressure. In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches of the atmosphere in a drawing furnace to be 0.01 MPa (10 Pa) above the atmospheric pressure [0146-150]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the atmosphere around the glass base material is higher than the atmospheric pressure within the instantly claimed range as known parameters to effectively seal the drawing furnace from outside oxygen [0004].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-4390357-A teaches the filters used to deliver air in the fiber drawing apparatus
JP-H07144931-A teaches the similar location for blowing clean air
JP-2003048739-A teaches similar particle limitations to satisfy clean environment in fiber drawing apparatus
JP-2003119034-A teaches similar particle limitations for optical fiber preform fabrication
JP-2004142976-A teaches blowing clean air with same particle limitations upwards in fiber drawing/lower in location in the apparatus
JP-2012006797-A teaches a plurality of cool boxes along the length of the drawn fiber
US-20150321945-A1 teaches of the pressure of the environment is adjusted when there is a sealing/covering portion
US-20190210910-A1 teaches a similar apparatus designed to minimize pressure fluctuations
CN-110885184-A teaches a clean, sealed environment surrounding a glass base material to be drawn
US-20200255321-A1 teaches storing glass base material in a similar particle limitation
US-20220024800-A1 teaches a clean, sealed environment that is above atmospheric pressure
US-20040134236-A1 teaches the count of particle not smaller than 0.3 μm is less than 1000/cubic foot
JP-2011236071-A teaches the particle count for particles the size of 0.5 μm and 1 μm for a fiber drawing apparatus
US-20210069758-A1 teaches of applying sonic energy to the drawing muffle to remove particles the size of 0.1-1 μm
WO-2022244869-A1 teaches of different process parameters to decrease number of particles in a fiber drawing apparatus
JP-4465932-B2 teaches of 3.5*103 particles/m3 for particles sized 0.5 μm or larger
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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