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 .
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to w JP2024-038138, with a filing date of 03/12/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2 drawn to an article in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 3-4 (drawn to a process of making), 5 (drawn to a product), and 6 (drawn to a product) is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. The abstract contains purported merits, citing,
improve productivity.
leaving strain that does not cause substantial damage in the event that cracks occur in the quartz glass rods after shipment
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/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.
Claims 1 recites “by gradually drawing the quartz glass rod through multiple drawing processes”, The term “gradually” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “by gradually drawing the quartz glass rod through multiple drawing processes” is rendered indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the bending correction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “a bending correction”.
Claim 2 recites “the final drawing process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “a final drawing process”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20100005837A1
by Nakanishi et. al. (herein “Nakanishi”) in further view of JPH02275723A (English language translation
of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Yokogawa et. al. (herein
“Yokogawa”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20190119144A1 by Edmundson et. al. (herein
“Edmundson”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Nakanishi teaches,
a manufacturing method of a glass rod; [0031], “…the glass body which was mainly made of silica glass…”
for obtaining a glass rod of a predetermined diameter;[0006], “…In order to achieve the object, a method of manufacturing an elongated glass body having a target outer diameter is provided.”
by gradually drawing the glass rod through multiple drawing processes; [0006], “This method comprises a first elongating step… and a second elongating step…”.
Nakanishi discloses multiple drawing processes [0006] where in each drawing process the glass body is softened by a heating source movable in a longitudinal direction, while the diameter is measured and controlled in each elongation step to a target diameter for that elongation step during elongation [0007], [0008]. The heating source is an oxyhydrogen flame [0032] and elongation device is termed an “elongation device” as illustrated in Fig. 1 (i.e. a lathe structure).
Yet, Nakanishi does not disclose the above for a quartz glass rod. In a similar endeavor of stretching and elongating a glass rod using a lathe and heating the glass rod, to target an outer diameter of the glass rod (lines 28-29), Yokogawa discloses a conventional elongation method where a quartz rod is held horizontally in a stretching device while heated by a flame, stretched by the tailstock, diameter measured, and where this operation was repeated “several” times (lines 50-55, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the quartz rod of Yokogawa in the method of Nakanishi, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to use a quartz rod for the purpose of using the quartz rod for an optical fiber preform, as noted by Yokogawa (line 36). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, Nakanishi discloses that the diameter control scheme for the first elongation process has a first diameter requirement that is “looser” than the control scheme for the second elongation process. In other words, the first elongation process is a “coarse diameter reduction” (as an example 30mm to 10.3, [0033]) and the second elongation process that is a “fine diameter reduction” (as an example 10.3mm to 10.00mm [0034]. Further differences between the “coarse diameter reduction” first elongation step and the “fine diameter reduction” second elongation step are illustrated in [0022], [0023], [0027], [0029].
Yet Nakanishi does not disclose wherein during the multiple drawing processes,
the bending of one or more portions of the quartz glass rod drawn by a glass processing lathe is corrected;
by heating the portions with a burner flame to soften them and bring the bending amount within a specified range.
In similar endeavor of using a lathe (Fig. 1) in a method to heat, straighten and elongate a glass rod [0005], Edmundson discloses a method that heats a portion of a glass rod, measures the straightness of the glass rod, controls the straightness of the glass rod (corrects the bending), and elongates the glass rod (Fig. 7, [0007], [0008], [0030],[0037]). The heat source is a torch that softens the glass rod (Fig. 1 element 32, [0020]) and can heat portions of the glass rod [0036]. As well, the collected measurements describe the profile of the glass core rod, such as a bowed shaped ([0037]), where in the broadest reasonable interpretation, could be considered a coarse shape of the glass rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Edmundson to correct the bending amount into a specified range in the first elongation step method of Nakanishi, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of making the glass rod straight before the glass rod is further drawn and or elongated as part of the process of manufacturing an optical fiber preform, as noted by Edmunson ([0001] lines 9-11).
Regarding Claim 2 - Nakanishi, Yokogawa, and Edmundson in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the
limitations of claim 1.
the bending correction is performed immediately before the final drawing process of the multiple drawing processes;
The combination discloses the instant claim in Claim 1, as the bending correction proceeds during the first elongation step, which occurs before the second elongation step which is the final drawing process of the multiple drawing processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Fattal et. al. (USPGPUB 20180002215A1) discloses a method to straighten and elongate glass components with bow (like a glass rod) with a heating device.
Fujii (USPGPUB 20150299023A1) discloses a method for elongating a glass base material to a predetermined diameter, and control thereof, using a glass lathe. The elongation occurs in two steps.
Yamamura et. al. (U.S. Patent 6,742,363) discloses elongation a glass rod which is a parent rod of an optical fiber preform, heating (flame) to reduce the diameter, with two elongation steps.
Shimizu et. al. (U.S. Patent 6,386,001) discloses heating (flame) a glass rod and elongating the glass rod to a diameter.
Clark et. al. (U.S. Patent 4,631,079) discloses a two-step elongation process for a glass rod by heating (flame) to obtain targeted diameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights