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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/7/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-14 and 18-23 and 25 are pending. Claims 18-23 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of present claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (WO 2019/010291; “Blazer”) in view of Zerafati et al. (US 2012/0045603) have been carefully reviewed, fully considered but they are found not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant contents that (1) there is no motivation to combine Blazer and Zerafati, because per applicant, “Zerafati does not teach or explain what it means to carry a load… A person of skill in the art may assume that Zerafati is concerned with burst strength. There is no other mention of carrying a load in Zerafati. No place does Zerafati discuss crush strength. The office action does not make a connection between Zerafati's undefined load carrying, to the needs of Blazer” (remarks, page 5, last two paragraphs and page 6, first para); (2) Applicant further asserts, for the invention of Blazer, the foamed article needs to have low tensile strength to prevent stresses from being transferred to sub-units, and the only material referenced by Blazer is LDPE which has a low tensile strength (remarks, page 5, second paragraph); and (3) Blazer and Zerafati are not in the same field because Blazer discloses a high-fiber-density ribbon cable using LDPE while Zerafati discloses foamed PVDF, and because the two references carry different classification codes (remarks, page 6, second paragraph).
In response to contention (1), Applicant's arguments have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s characteristic of Zerafati.
As an initial matter, Applicant’s characteristic of Zerafati in connection with the para [0065] of Zerafati, that “A person of skill in the art may assume that Zerafati is concerned with burst strength” is misplaced. Zerafati expressly teaches at para [0065] that “[T]he foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as pipes that could hold pressure, or rods or profiles that could carry loads” (para [0065]). Clearly, there is a disjunctive, Zerafati teaches pipes/pressure is one clause, rods-or-profiles/loads is a sperate one. Applicant’s reading of the reference Zerafati collapse two things the reference Zerafati distinguishes.
In the present case, it is noted that the primary reference Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod (150, para [0090]), not a pipe, so it falls under the load-carrying clause, not burst strength, contrary to applicant’s assertion.
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that “Zerafati does not teach or explain what it means to carry a load”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s characteristic of Zerafati. Zerafati expressly teaches at para [0065] that its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties. It is well understood that “load bearing” is a general mechanical property that encompassing a structure’s ability to resist and distribute applied forces.
In addition, Applicant’s reliance on Zerafati’s description of “good mechanical stability and load bearing properties” as being in tension with Blazer’s low-tensile-strength requirement conflates two distinct concepts. Zerafati’s statement describes the foam’s retained structural integrity and usefulness despite significant density reduction — it does not assert that the foam possesses high absolute tensile strength, nor does it foreclose the foam having comparatively low tensile strength relative to solid PVDF. A foam can simultaneously have “good” (i.e., sufficient, functional) mechanical stability for its intended use as a filler rod, and a low tensile strength relative to its unfoamed base material. These are not mutually exclusive properties, and Applicant has not identified any teaching in either reference establishing an actual conflict between them.
In response to contention (2), Applicant's arguments have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s characteristic of Blazer.
Applicant’s argument improperly treats Blazer’s low tensile strength as an inherent property of LDPE foam specifically, rather than as a property resulting from the degree of density reduction Blazer applies to its foamed filler rod. Blazer’s teaching at paragraph [0091] attributes the low tensile strength to the 80% density reduction of the material, not to any unique characteristic of LDPE that other foamable polymers could not replicate. Blazer does not teach or suggest or limit its filler rod to be LDPE foam only, contrary to applicant’s assertion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer foam with suitable density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer in view the teachings of Zerafati, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In response to contention (3), Applicant's arguments have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons. Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s interpretation of same or different of field of endeavor. It has long been established that field of endeavor is determined by the structure and function disclosed in the reference, not by the specific polymer named or by classification codes assigned for search purposes. MPEP 2141.01(a). In the present case, both Blazer and Zerafati are directed to the same field: foamed polymeric rod or profile structures used as elongated support/filler members. Blazer discloses a foamed filler rod functioning as a structural support component within a cable (para [0089]). Zerafati discloses that its foamed PVDF is useful for producing “rods or profiles that could carry loads” (para [0065]) — the same class of article serving the same general load-bearing function as Blazer’s filler rod.
The rejection below is updated to address the present claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (WO 2019/010291; “Blazer”) in view of Zerafati et al. (US 2012/0045603).
Regarding claim 1, Blazer teaches an optical fiber filler rod (150, Fig. 6, para [0090] [0002]) includes a foamed filler rod of foamed material (para [0090], the filler rod 150 is a foamed filler rod) and a strength member (116, Fig. 6), wherein the filler rod (150) is not hollow (see Fig. 6, para [0090], Blazer teaches a cable with the inclusion of a support structure of a foam filler rod (150) that is not hollow). Blazer teaches its foam filler rod (150) prevents subunits from moving into the center of the stranded subunits (para [0089]).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod (150, para [0090]), but Blazer does not specifically teach its foamed rod is made of the specific foam material as instantly claimed, i.e., a foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition, with the specific density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer due to foaming, as instantly claimed.
In the present case, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making various rods or profiles that could carry loads as desired (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches the mechanical properties of its foam are variable and controllable, as Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]), which density reduction % falls within the instantly claimed range of from 5% to 70% reduction of instant claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. Zerafati also teaches an advantage of PVDF foamed structure is their increased flexibility (para [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer foam with suitable density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer in view the teachings of Zerafati, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer, but does not specifically teach using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has the specific melt viscosity as instantly claimed.
As discussed above, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads. (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati further teaches the foam needs a high melt viscosity to produce a sized structure having a dense skin layer (para [0009]). Zerafati teaches using suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has melt viscosity of 4.0 to 55 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1 (para [0062], see step b) paragraph), which melt viscosity range overlaps with the instantly claimed melt viscosity range of 4 to 35 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified filler rod of Blazer, to select polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity in view the teachings of Zerafati, to provide a foamed filler rod having a dense skin layer as taught by Zerafati (para [0009] [0062]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, as discussed above in rejection to claim 1, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer includes polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer, and polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer having a comonomer of greater than 51% by weight of vinylidene fluoride (para [0029]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range at least 70% by weight of vinylidene fluoride of claim 3, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 5% of by weight of vinylidene fluoride of claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati (i.e., such as those polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer, and polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer having a comonomer of at least 51% by weight of vinylidene fluoride, as discussed above), as taught by Zerafati as suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry desired loads (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 3 and 9. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4-5, as discussed above in rejection to claims 1 and 3, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches the suitable comonomer includes hexafluoropropylene (HFP), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) (para [0029]), meeting the claimed material limitations of claims 4-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati (i.e., such as those polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer having a comonomer of hexafluoropropylene (HFP) or tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), as discussed above), as taught by Zerafati as suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry desired loads (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 4-5. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6-8, as discussed above in rejection to claim 1, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Henry teaches its polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition may contain suitable additives including calcium tungstate (para [0034] [0035]), which is the same flame-retardant additive that increases the limiting oxygen index as that of the instant application, meeting the claimed limitations of claim 6 and 7. Zerafati teaches suitable amount of the additive is about 0.01 to 95 weight percent (para [0016]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 0.1 wt% of instant claim 8. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati as suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry desired loads (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in in claims 6-8. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above in rejection to claim 1, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]), which density reduction % falls within the instantly claimed range of from 15% to 60% reduction of instant claim 10. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer foam with suitable density reduction % of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer in view the teachings of Zerafati, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above in rejection to claims 1 and 3, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati) using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity (as taught by Zerafati). In such modified the filler rod of Henry, the outside surface of the filler rod is not foamed, because Zerafati teaches high melt viscosity produces a sized structure having a dense skin layer (i.e., not foamed) (para [0009] [0062]).
Regarding claims 13-14, as discussed above in rejection to claims 1 and 3, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati). Zerafati teaches its polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition may further comprise filler and additives (para [0035]), meeting the claimed limitations of claim 13. Henry teaches its polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition may further contain fire retardant additive/flame-retardant additive (para [0034]), meeting the claimed limitations of claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory foamed filler rod that is of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is the same as instantly claimed in claims 13-14. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding independent claim 25, Blazer teaches an optical fiber filler rod (150, Fig. 6, para [0090] [0002]) includes a foamed filler rod of foamed material (para [0090], the filler rod 150 is a foamed filler rod) and a strength member (116, Fig. 6), wherein the filler rod (150) is not hollow (see Fig. 6, para [0090], Blazer teaches a cable with the inclusion of a support structure of a foam filler rod (150) that is not hollow). Blazer teaches its foam filler rod (150) prevents subunits from moving into the center of the stranded subunits (para [0089]). Blazer does not teach or require its filler rod (150) must include an outer skin layer, and is thus considered meeting the claimed limitations, i.e., without an outer skin layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod, but Blazer does not specifically teach its foamed rod is made of the specific foam material as instantly claimed, i.e., a foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition.
In the same field of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride article, Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati teaches its foamed PVDF has a density that is at least 3% less than said non-foamed PVDF, and more preferably at least 25% less (para [0065]). It is noted that Zerafati teaches its foam has good mechanical stability and load bearing properties would exist for PVDF foamed structures having density reductions down to 50% of the original density, making them useful as rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler rod of Blazer in view the teachings of Zerafati, to select suitable foam material for its foamed filler rod, such as to select PVDF foam having density reductions down to 50% of the original density of the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that could carry desired loads as taught by Zerafati (para [0065]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer, but does not specifically teach using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has the specific melt viscosity as instantly claimed.
Zerafati teaches foamed polyvinylidene fluoride suitable for making rods or profiles that could carry loads (para [0009] [0038] [0065]). Zerafati further teaches the foam needs a high melt viscosity to produce a sized structure having a dense skin layer (para [0009]). Zerafati teaches using suitable polyvinylidene fluoride polymer has melt viscosity of 4.0 to 55 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1 (para [0062], see step b) paragraph), which melt viscosity range overlaps with the instantly claimed melt viscosity range of 4 to 35 kpoise, measured at 230°C at a shear rate of 100 s-1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified filler rod of Blazer, to select polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity in view the teachings of Zerafati, to provide a foamed filler rod having a dense skin layer as taught by Zerafati (para [0009] [0062]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that is the same as instantly claimed. Further, in this regard, it is expected that the modified filler rod of Blazer (as discussed above) would possess the same or similar properties as instantly claimed filler rod such as meets the NFPA 262 rating (as instantly claimed in claim 25), because the composition of modified filler rod of Blazer and the instantly claimed filler rod are identical or substantially identical in composition (i.e., of the same or similar polyvinylidene fluoride polymer having the overlapping melt viscosity). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer in view of Henry and Zerafati as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of WO2019/050915 to Zerafati et al. (“Zerafati ‘915”).
The limitations of claims 1 and 3 are taught by Blazer in view of Zerafati as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Blazer teaches a foamed filler rod of the foamed polyvinylidene fluoride polymer (taught by Zerafati) using polyvinylidene fluoride polymer with suitable melt viscosity (as taught by Zerafati). However, modified Blazer does not specifically teach the inclusion of expanded microspheres.
In the same field of foamed polyvinylidene fluoride, Zerafati ‘915 teaches a low density fluoropolymer foam (page 4, first and second para), and teaches forming a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) foam with addition of expanded microspheres provides processing advantages that there is less gas/polymer interaction and thus concerns about the reduction of melt strength is reduced (page 8, last two para), and provides low density fluoropolymer foam (page 4, first and second para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified filler rod of Blazer, to include expanded microspheres in the polyvinylidene fluoride polymer composition as taught by Zerafati ‘915, for the benefit of processing advantages as taught by Zerafati ‘915that there is less gas/polymer interaction and thus concerns about the reduction of melt strength is reduced (page 8, last two para), and provides low density fluoropolymer foam as taught by Zerafati ‘915 (page 4, first and second para), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory filler rod that is the same as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zerafati et al. (US 2013/0108816) that relates to fluoropolymer foam structure; and Rutterman et al. (US 6,295,401) that relates to optical fiber ribbon cables.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached on 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights