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 .
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
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in lines 5-6 of claim 19. The term “core canes holes” should be “core cane holes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey et al. (US 2022/0315474A1 – hereinafter Pandey) in view of Chiba (JP2011-162392A), Wei et al. (CN103241937A – hereinafter Wei), and Kajikawa et al. (“Characteristics of Over 600-km-Long 4-core MCF Drawn from a Single Preform”, Conference: 2023 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), Conference date March 2023, Date Added to IEEE Xplore May 19, 2023, 3 pages).
For the Chiba reference, the Examiner is referencing pages of the machine translation attached to the office action dated Jul. 17, 2025.
Regarding claim 19, Pandey (Fig. 2, abstract, and [0083]) discloses a method of forming a multicore fiber including a plurality of discs with a plurality of core rods inserted in each disc (corresponding to a sleeve). Pandey ([0069], [0077], [0083]) discloses each of the discs includes a plurality of through holes that includes a plurality of core rods having a length 114, and ([0018]) discloses drilling the plurality of through holes in each disc. Pandey ([0081]) further discloses the sleeve (i.e. disc 104) made of silica glass. Based on the disclosures above, Pandey provides for forming a plurality of core cane holes within a sleeve (disc 104) blank and the sleeve is a silica-based glass.
Pandey fails to disclose heating a sleeve blank above its softening temperature and molding the heated sleeve blank within a mold to form a sleeve (i.e. disc) so that exterior surfaces of the sleeve assume the shape of the mold, details of the sleeve blank, such as the sleeve blank does not comprise core cane holes, and the sleeve blank comprising non-uniform and undulating exterior surfaces along at least a portion of the exterior surfaces of the sleeve blank such that exterior surfaces of the sleeve being relatively more uniform than exterior surfaces of the sleeve blank.
However, Chiba (pg. 2 and Figs 1a-1d) discloses a method of molding a quartz glass into a cylindrical shape, which is similar to the disc shape of Pandey. Chiba also discloses heating and melting a quartz glass bulk or ingot (corresponding to a sleeve blank) to a temperature ranging from 1500 degrees C to 2000 degrees C and molding the heated sleeve blank within a mold (“outer cylinder 14” and “bottom plate 12”) such that the quartz glass molded body has the same dimensions as the inner diameter of the outer cylinder. As discussed above, Pandey discloses drilling holes in the silica disc (corresponding to a sleeve). Additionally, Kajikawa (Fig. 1 and pg. 1) teaches a glass made from an OVD process and in Fig. 1 illustrates the glass made from the process has an undulating wavy exterior surface. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Chiba and Kajikawa, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the sleeve (i.e. disc 104) of Pandey prior to forming a plurality of core cane holes within the sleeve could be formed by heating and melting a quartz bulk or ingot, such as a blank supplied from an OVD process having an undulating wavy surface, as taught by Kajikawa, within a mold such that the molded body (corresponding to the sleeve) does not comprise core cane holes has the same dimensions as the inner diameter of the outer cylinder. Accordingly, the modified method of Pandey in view of Chiba and Kajikawa provides for the claimed step of heating a sleeve blank without core cane holes and the sleeve blank comprising non-uniform and undulating exterior surfaces along at least a portion of the exterior surfaces of the sleeve blank. The combination of Pandey in view of Chiba and Kajikawa, is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods yield predictable results.
Pandey in view of Chiba and Kajikawa fails to disclose the exterior surfaces of the sleeve (i.e. molded body) are relatively more uniform than the exterior surfaces of the sleeve blank. However, Wei ([0004] teaches molding an optical fiber preform rod and teaches an adjustable casting mold to greatly increase the uniformity of the preform rod casting improves the optical performance of the preform rod. The method of Pandey in view of Chiba and Kajikawa and the method of Wei provides for molding a component of an optical fiber preform. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings that uniformity of a cast preform for an optical fiber greatly improves optical performance, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of Pandey in view of Chiba and Kajikawa, the optical performance of the molded sleeve for the optical fiber preform in the modified method could be improved by increasing the uniformity of the molded sleeve. In the process of increasing the uniformity of the molded sleeve in the modified method of Pandey, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the uniformity of all surfaces, including the exterior surfaces of the molded sleeve, being relatively more uniform than the non-uniform and undulating exterior surfaces of the OVD sleeve blank to provide for improved optical performance.
Regarding claim 20, as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above, Pandey discloses each disc (i.e. sleeve) includes a plurality of through holes that includes a plurality of core rods. Additionally, Pandey (abstract) further discloses a plurality of core rods inserted in a plurality of through holes in each disc (i.e. sleeve). Pandey ([0082]) also discloses the plurality of core rods may be made of up-dopant pure silica (corresponding to a core region), such as a Ge doped silica glass or made of up-dopant pure silica surrounded by down doped regions. Based on the disclosures by Pandey, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Pandey provides for inserting a core cane through each of the core cane holes, the core canes being formed each being formed of silica-based glass and the core-canes each comprising a core region.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above, Chiba teaches melting a quartz glass bulk or ingot (corresponding to a sleeve blank) to a temperature ranging from 1500 degrees C to 2000 degrees C and molding the heated sleeve blank within a mold (“outer cylinder 14” and “bottom plate 12”) such that the quartz glass molded body has the same dimensions as the inner diameter of the outer cylinder. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of Pandey provides for a melting temperature of 1500-2000 degrees C, which includes temperatures above a softening temperature, and since it is heated for melting includes heating the sleeve blank to a temperature in an overlapping range of 1500-2000 degrees C, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of about 1700 degrees C and greater, as claimed in claim 21, and heating the sleeve blank to a temperature have values within Applicant’s claimed range of about 2000 degrees C or less, as claimed in claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes an amendment to claim 19. The Examiner Applied the same references of Pandey in view of Chiba , Wei, and Kajikawa and addressed the additional claim limitation in the amendment.
Applicant alleges that The Office Action (non-final rejection dated Feb. 24, 2026) that a disc 104 of Pandey corresponds to the claimed sleeve blank. This is inaccurate. The Examiner has mapped disc 104 to a sleeve not the sleeve blank. On pg. 4 of the non-final rejection, the Examiner mapped “the sleeve (i.e. disc 104)” made of silica glass and stated the disclosure of Pandey “provides for forming a plurality of core cane holes within a sleeve (disc 104)”. The Examiner stated “Pandey fails to disclose heating a sleeve blank within a mold to form a sleeve . . “, and then the Examiner Applied the Chiba, Kajikawa, and Wei reference.
Applicant argues the combination of Pandey in view of Chiba would have provided at best, placing disc 104 of Pandey within the mold of Chiba. This is not persuasive. As stated in the rejection, Pandey discloses drilling the plurality of through holes in each disc. Therefore, Pandey provides for a disc (i.e. sleeve) without holes and the drilling of the plurality of through holes in each disc provides for forming a plurality of holes within the disc (i.e. sleeve). Then the Examiner applied the Chiba reference to teach molding a cylindrical (i.e. disc) shape from a quartz glass bulk or ingot (corresponding to a sleeve blank). Accordingly, the Examiner maintains Pandey in view of Chiba provides for a molded disc without core cane holes. The Examiner notes the Kajikawa reference is applied to teach glass made from an OVD process and in Fig. 1 illustrates the glass made from the process has an undulating wavy exterior surface and the Wei reference teaches an adjustable casting mold to greatly increase the uniformity of the preform rod casting improves the optical performance of the preform rod.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains Pandey in view of Chiba , Wei, and Kajikawa provide for the limitations claimed in claim 19. Dependent claims 20-22 hinge upon the arguments against claim 19. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claim 19, the Examiner maintains Pandey in view of Chiba, Wei, and Kajikawa also provide for the limitations of dependent claims 20-22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 17-18 is/are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed below.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-13, and 17-18, the prior fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method step of claim 1 including positioning a sleeve blank within a mold, the sleeve blank comprising a plurality of precursor core cane holes and the mold comprising a plurality of rods in combination with the remaining claimed steps of positioning, heating and molding, and inserting as claimed. Please see the applied prior art in non-final rejection dated Jul. 17, 2025.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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