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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of “the optical fiber including a fiber core, a cladding, and a coating” as now cited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (2018/0108454) in view of Pacini et al. (2018/0274954).
Shen et al. discloses an optical/electrical hybrid cable, comprising: a linear conductor (11, steel wire); an optical fiber (3); and an outer sheath (4), wherein the outer sheath wraps an exterior of the linear conductor and an exterior of the optical fiber, wherein the linear conductor and the optical fiber are arranged side by side, wherein the outer sheath is in touch with the linear conductor (11), wherein the optical fiber includes a fiber core, a cladding (32), and a buffer (33) (re-claim 1). Shen et al. also discloses the cross section of the outer sheath being a round-angle rectangle (re-claim 4).
Shen et al. does not disclose the optical fiber including a coating (re-claim 1). Pacini et al. discloses an optical fiber including a fiber core (14), a cladding (16), a coating (18), and a buffer (20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the optical fiber taught by Pacini et al. for the optical fiber of Shen et al. since such optical fiber has improved mechanical and transmission properties ([0009]). It is noted that in the modified cable of Shen et al., the outer sheath (4) of Shen et al. is in touch with the buffer (20 of Pacini).
It is noted that since the outer sheath of Shen et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, it serves as an insulation cladding on the exterior of the linear conductor and as a jacket of the optical fiber; the linear conductor and the outer sheath form a power cable; the optical fiber and the outer sheath form an optical fiber cable; the power cable and the optical fiber cable are separable by stripping the outer sheath (at groove 41) (re-claim 1).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. in view of Ishikawa (JP 2012-190570) and Pacini et al.
Shen et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, see the rejection above.
Shen et al. does not disclose the outer being in touch with the linear conductor (21) and serving as an insulation cladding on the exterior of the linear conductor (21); and the optical fiber including a fiber core, a cladding, a coating, and a buffer.
Ishikawa discloses a cable comprising a linear conductor (4) and an outer sheath (5) which is in touch with the linear conductor and serves as an insulation cladding on the exterior of the linear conductor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the linear conductor (21) of Shen et al. such that the outer sheath (4) is in touch with the linear conductor (i.e., omitting or not having insulation 22) and serves as insulation cladding on the exterior of the linear conductor as taught by Ishikawa to reduce manufacture cost.
Pacini et al. discloses an optical fiber including a fiber core (14), a cladding (16), a coating (18), and a buffer (20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the optical fiber taught by Pacini et al. for the optical fiber of Shen et al. since such optical fiber has improved mechanical and transmission properties ([0009]). It is noted that in the modified cable of Shen et al., the outer sheath (4) of Shen et al. is in touch with the buffer (20 of Pacini).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. in view of Pacini et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark et al. (2008/0073105).
Shen et al. and Pacini et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed including the outer sheath being made of low smoke zero halogen ([0028]). Shen et al. does not disclose the outer sheath having a volume resistivity greater than or equal to 1x1012 Ω.m, a dielectric strength greater than or equal to 20 MV/m, and a temperature resistance range of 70°C to 200°C.
Clark et al. discloses an electrical cable comprising an outer sheath (22) material which has a volume resistivity greater than or equal to 1x1012 Ω.m, a dielectric strength greater than or equal to 20 MV/m, and a temperature resistance range of 70°C to 200°C. (Table 1, 1017 Ω.cm; 35-40 kV/mm = 35-40 MV/m; and the melting point ranges of 280-290°, not melted until reaching 280°C. Therefore, temperature resistance should be 70°C to 200°C).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the material as taught by Clark et al. for the outer sheath of Shen et al. since such material provides excellent fire characteristics; physical and processing properties ([0025]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. in view of Ishikawa and Pacini et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark et al.
Shen et al., as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the outer sheath being made of low smoke zero halogen ([0028]). Shen et al. does not disclose the outer sheath having a volume resistivity greater than or equal to 1x1012 Ω.m, a dielectric strength greater than or equal to 20 MV/m, and a temperature resistance range of 70°C to 200°C.
Clark et al. discloses an electrical cable comprising an outer sheath (22) material which has a volume resistivity greater than or equal to 1x1012 Ω.m, a dielectric strength greater than or equal to 20 MV/m, and a temperature resistance range of 70°C to 200°C. (Table 1, 1017 Ω.cm; 35-40 kV/mm = 35-40 MV/m; and the melting point ranges of 280-290°, not melted until reaching 280°C. Therefore, temperature resistance should be 70°C to 200°C).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the material as taught by Clark et al. for the outer sheath of Shen et al. since such material provides excellent fire characteristics; physical and processing properties ([0025]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. in view of Ishikawa, Pacini et al., and Sasaki et al. (2019/0033544).
Shen et al., as modified, discloses a hybrid cable as claimed in claim 19, see rejection above with respect to claim 1.
Shen et al. does not disclose the hybrid cable being connected between an optical/electrical transmit device and an optical/electrical receive device.
Sasaki et al. (Fig. 1, [0059], [0060]) discloses an optical communications system, comprising: an optical/electrical transmit device (STB) configured to output an electrical signal and an optical signal; and an optical/electrical receive device (40) configured to receive the electrical signal and the optical signal, wherein the optical/electrical transmit device and the optical/electrical receive device are connected by an optical/electrical hybrid cable (1). Sasaki et al. also discloses that the optical/electrical transmit device is configured to output electric energy (via lines 2a, 2b), and the optical/electrical receive device is configured to consume the electric energy ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to connect the modified hybrid cable of Shen et al. between the optical/electrical transmit device and the optical/electrical receive device to provide an optical/electrical communications system as taught by Sasaki et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Regarding the drawing objection, applicant states that features of “the optical fiber including a fiber core, a cladding, and a coating” are shown in Fig. 4. Examiner would disagree, Fig. 4 only shows optical fiber 321 and duffer 322. There are no cladding and coating shown in Fig. 4.
Applicant argues that outer sheath 4 of Shen does not form a part of the power transmission components and does not form a part of the optical fiber transmission components, as claimed. Examiner would disagree. With respect to the combination of Shen and Pacini, outer sheath (4) of Shen wraps and is in touch with the linear conductor (11), as claimed. Therefore, outer sheath (4) and linear conductor (11) of Shen form the power transmission components. Likewise, outer sheath (4) of Shen wraps an exterior of the optical fiber (3), as claimed. Therefore, outer sheath (4) and optical fiber (3) of Shen form the optical fiber transmission components.
Applicant argues that none of the references on record teaches or suggests that the power cable and the optical cable are separable by stripping the outer sheath. Examiner would disagree. The fact that Shen discloses groove (41) located between power cable (2) and optical cable (3); these two cables are separable by stripping the outer sheath at groove (4).
Applicant request for some clarifications from the 06/16/2025 Office Action (OA):
First, applicant specifically has question regarding claim 5 with respect to the Shen reference. As noted in the history of prosecution, the restriction requirement and the election are done before first non-final office is issued.
In the second request (see page 11 of the Remarks), applicant states that “first rejection over Shen in view of Pacini is incomplete because the rejection never addressed the deficiencies of Shen conceded by the office in the second rejection.” Examiner cannot understand the argument due to the confusion between first and second rejections. Nonetheless, when rejecting claims 1 and 4 using the combination of Shen and Pacini, the OA does state that Shen does not disclose the optical fiber including a coating, and such deficiency is taught by Pacini. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected again using the combination of Shen, Ishikawa, and Pacini. The OA does state that “Shen does not disclose the outer sheath being in touch with the linear conductor (21) and serving as an insulation cladding on the exterior of the linear conductor (21); and the optical fiber including a core, a cladding, a coating, and a buffer.” These deficiencies are taught by Ishikawa and Pacini. Accordingly, the first and second rejections with respect to claims 1 and 4 are completed.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights