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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of either of the prior-filed provisional application, Application No. 62794,618 or No. 62/902,664, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Neither of the prior-filed application discloses the claimed limitations “wherein each of the fiber optic subunits surrounded by the cable jacket comprises a free space of greater than 35%” in independent claim 1. The earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention is therefore that of PCT/US2020/014016 (01/17/2020).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,906,067 to Mayr et al.
Regarding claim 1, Mayr teaches a unitized fiber optic cable (OC, Fig. 2), comprising: a plurality of fiber optic subunits (bundle elements BE), each fiber optic subunit including a plurality of tight buffered optical fibers (individual waveguides LF11, LF 12 coated by an acrylate layer BA1); a subunit jacket (protective sheath SH) surrounding the plurality of tight buffered optical fibers of each fiber optic subunit, each subunit jacket being extruded in a first shape (col. 3, ll. 30-33, substantially circular as in Fig. 1); and a cable jacket (outer cladding MA for the cable OC) surrounding the plurality of fiber optic subunits (BE1-BEn); wherein the subunit jacket of each fiber optic subunit is configured to substantially deform from the first shape into a second, non-circular shape (similar to trapezoids as illustrated in Fig. 2) when disposed inside the cable jacket (MA) such that the second, non-circular shape of at least one subunit jacket of at least one fiber optic subunit of the plurality of fiber optic subunits defines a different geometric profile than the second, non-circular shape of at least one other subunit jacket of at least one other fiber optic subunit of the plurality of fiber optic subunits (as shown in Fig. 2, BE1 and an adjacent bundle element take different shapes, due to how the light waveguides LP inside the bundle elements are oriented), and wherein each of the fiber optic subunits surrounded by the cable jacket comprises a free space of greater than 35% (dead space of ~60%, col. 3, ll. 55-60).
Regarding claim 2, Mayr further teaches the total number of optical fibers in the unitized fiber optic cable ranges from 48 optical fibers to 144 optical fibers (Fig. 2 shows a bundle element BE having at least 10 of the individual waveguides LF, and each cable can have up to twenty bundle elements as stated in col. 3, ll. 61-64).
Regarding claim 3, Mayr further teaches a thickness of the subunit jacket is 0.15 + 0.07 millimeters (“tubular protective sheath SH, whose wall thickness is selected to be in a range of between 10% and 20% of the outside diameter of the bundle element” and “bundled element BE has an outside diameter in a range of between 1.7 and 2.5 mm”).
Regarding claim 7, Mayr further teaches at least one strength member (“tensile core”, Fig. 2) disposed within the cable jacket.
Regarding claim 9, Mayr further teaches the unitized cable has a packing density of greater than 50 fibers/cm2 (each of the subunit BE has 10 fibers therein and an inner diameter of 1.5 mm).
Regarding claim 10, Mayr further teaches at least some of the plurality of optical fibers are configured to move radially and azimuthally within each fiber optic subunit (The corner regions of the light waveguide pairs LP1-LP5 are optimally rounded off to a great extent. This leads to a better gliding or movement of the pairs relative to each other in the sheath SH and to a more favorable utilization of the space.)
Regarding claim 17, Mayr further teaches the subunit jackets of each of the plurality of fiber optic subunits are color-coded (via a colored strip FC1).
Regarding claim 22, Mayr teaches a unitized fiber optic cable (OC, Fig. 2), comprising: a plurality of fiber optic subunits (bundle elements BE), each fiber optic subunit including a plurality of tight buffered optical fibers (individual waveguides LF11, LF 12 coated by an acrylate layer BA1); a subunit jacket (protective sheath SH) surrounding the plurality of tight buffered optical fibers of each fiber optic subunit, each subunit jacket being extruded in a first shape (col. 3, ll. 30-33, substantially circular as in Fig. 1); and a cable jacket (outer cladding MA for the cable OC) surrounding the plurality of fiber optic subunits (BE1-BEn); wherein the subunit jacket of at least some of the plurality of fiber optic subunits are deformed from the first shape into a second, non-circular shape (similar to trapezoids as illustrated in Fig. 2) when disposed inside the cable jacket (MA) such that the second, non-circular shape of at least one subunit jacket of at least one fiber optic subunit of the plurality of fiber optic subunits defines a different geometric profile than the second, non-circular shape of at least one other subunit jacket of at least one other fiber optic subunit of the plurality of fiber optic subunits (as shown in Fig. 2, BE1 and an adjacent bundle element take different shapes, due to how the light waveguides LP inside the bundle elements are oriented), and wherein each of the fiber optic subunits surrounded by the cable jacket comprises a free space of greater than 35% (dead space of ~60%, col. 3, ll. 55-60), and wherein the unitized cable has a packing density of greater than 50 fibers/cm2 (each of the subunit BE has 10 fibers therein and an inner diameter of 1.5 mm).
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(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr et al.
Regarding claim 5, Mayr teaches the unitized fiber optic cable comprising the plurality of fiber optic subunits (BE1-BEn), which may be arranged in configures of stranding patterns of 1+5, 1+6, 2+7, 2+8, 3+8, 3+9, 4+9, 4+10, 5+10, 1+5+10, 1+5+11, 1+6+11, 1+6+12, 2+7+11, i.e., multiple, concentric layers of the subunits (BE1-n) (col. 3, ll. 61-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mayr’s invention, by rearranging the 3+9 or 4+9 stranding patterns into a claimed 4+8 pattern based on the dimensions of the fiber optic subunits and/or the cable jacket and as a matter of engineering choice, absent persuasive evidence a change in shape is significant to the claimed invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 6, while Mayr teaches the outside diameter of the subunits (BE) to be in a range of 1.7-2.5 mm, instead of “about 4 millimeters”, the value is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations in order to optimize a size of the subunit jacket for a desired tube capacity for optical fibers held therein. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim(s) 8, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3346307 A1 by Bezawada et al.
Regarding claim 8, Mayr teaches the unitized fiber optic cable of claim 1 comprising a plurality of substantially pie-shaped subunits (BE) surrounding the central tensile core within the cable jacket (MA), but does not further teach using strength yarns disposed within the cable jacket. Bezawada also teaches a unitized fiber optic cable, comprising: a plurality of fiber optic subunits (115a-f) also in a pie-shaped configuration, each fiber optic subunit including a plurality of tight buffered optical fibers (¶[0015]); a subunit jacket (110a-f) surrounding each fiber optic subunit; a cable jacket (135) surrounding the plurality of fiber optic subunits; a central strength member (105) and strength yarns disposed within the cable jacket (first layer 120 including one or more yarns acting as a strengthening element). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mayr’s invention by adding a strengthening yarn layer surrounding the subunits (BE), as suggested by Bezawada, for the purpose of binding and providing strength support the subunits.
Regarding claim 19, Bezawada further suggests the strength yarns are disposed between the plurality of fiber optic subunits and the cable jacket (in a first layer 120) for providing strength and binding to the subunits.
Regarding claim 20, Bezawada further suggests the strength yarns comprise aramid fibers (¶[0039]) for its strength and lightweight combination as is known to a person skilled in the art.
Claims 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2010/0086270 by Oyama et al.
Regarding claims 11, 16, Mayr teaches the unitized fiber optic cable in claim 1 comprising the plurality of tight buffered optical fibers (LF), but does not specify a diameter range of 0.5-0.9 mm or 0.4-1.00 mm for the tighter buffered fibers. Oyama teaches an optical fiber cable comprising a tight-buffered optical fiber 10 which suppress an increase in transmission loss in a humid and hot environment and have good manufacturability, an ultraviolet-curable resin or the like is used as the first coating layer 12, a second coating layer 13 of a thermoplastic resin, an ultraviolet-curable resin, or the like having an outer diameter of 0.9 mm (¶[0045], Table 1). The tight-buffered optical fiber produced by Oyama has a good manufacturability and a good optical fiber pull-out capability and suppressed transmission loss due to microbends, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select said tight-buffered optical fibers having a 0.9 mm diameter for constructing the unitized fiber optic cable in Mayr’s invention, as well as choosing appropriate buffer tube to maintain the dead space percentage desired by Mayr, for the same advantages.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr et al. as applied to claim 17 above, respectively, and further in view of WO 2019/010291 A1 by Blazer et al.
Regarding claim 18, Mayr teaches the unitized fiber optic cable as above, wherein the subunit jackets of each of the plurality of fiber optic subunits are color-coded (FC1) to assure a distinguishability. Mayr does not further specify printed identifiers for the subunits jackets. Blazer teaches a unitized fiber optic cable, comprising: a plurality of fiber optic subunits (16), each fiber optic subunit including a plurality of tight buffered optical fibers (buffer coatings, ¶[0092]); a subunit jacket (sheath 20) surrounding each fiber optic subunit; and a cable jacket (12) surrounding the plurality of fiber optic subunits, wherein core subunits (16) may be colored a different color to enhance configuration management and routing of the fibers in the separate subunits (16) and additional print markings may be provided on the outside of the sheath (20) to provide additional configuration or product information, such as numbering to identify individual core subunits 16 and/or, for example, information about the types of fibers contained in each core subunit 16. It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further include printed markings on the subunit jacket as suggested by Blazer, to make easy for the user to identify the type of fibers contained within the subunits.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2008/0013899 by Gowan et al.
Regarding claim 21, Mayr teaches the unitized fiber optic cable includes a central strength member (tensile core, Fig. 2) substantially along a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber cable (OC). Gowan teaches a foam polymer upjacketed rigid strength member for a fiber optic cable, wherein the polymer used to make the upjacket may also be polyethylene including high density polyethylene ("HDPE"), medium density polyethylene ("MDPE"), or linear low density polyethylene ("LLDPE"), as FIG. 2 illustrates. The resulting jacketed rigid strength member demonstrates improved resistance to thermal contraction, reducing the contribution of stresses in the fiber optic cable components, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mayr’s invention, to include a foam upjacket as suggested by Gowan, for the same advantages.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2002/0034367 by Gaillard et al.
Regarding claims 24-26, Mayr teaches the unitized optical fiber cable comprising the subunits jackets (BE1-n) made of a rubber-elastic material such as thermoplastically deformable polyurethane or polyester rubbers. Mayr does not further teaches an additionally dispersed inert filler such as talc. Gaillard also teaches an optical-fiber cable (Fig. 1) comprising an assembly of subunits (flexible buffer tubes 12), wherein the buffer tubes (12) contain thermoplastic that contains an inert filler such as talc (¶[0062]), wherein said thermoplastic possesses flexible diol segments that tear rather easily (e.g., thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers (TPUs) obtained by having both a polymerdiol and possibly a diol (or chain extender of low molecular weight) react with a diisocyanate ¶[0058], [0059]), in order to permit easy access to optical fibers (14) contained in the buffer tubes (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the subunits (bundled elements BE) in Mayr’s invention by using TPUs that tear rather easily to as the material for the subunit sheath and by adding the talc binder to control a level of adhesion, as suggested by Gaillard, i.e., to hold together the tubes compactly, which is an improvement eliminating crushing stresses to the sheath (SH) that binders can produce.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPub20200012059 discloses an optical cable with deformable buffer tubes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on (571)270-1739. 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874