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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed November 17, 2022.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as November 30, 2021, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/284,104) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as November 17, 2022, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The claims filed January 21, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1
none
Cancelled:
24
23
Withdrawn:
none
12-23
Added:
25
24
Claims 1-22 and 25 are currently pending. Claims 1-11 and 25 are currently outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claim 1 was amended.
Claim 24 was cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
Claim 25 was added.
Claims 1-11 and 25 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the third action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
While Applicant asserts the presence of special definitions, examiner sees any “decoupling distance Dd” or similar as being set forth and described according to the plain meaning of the language used. No indication is given as to how any term or phrase in the specification as originally filed "differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess". MPEP § 2111.01(VI).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “L2A” has been used to designate different elements on both sides of Fig. 10
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“L1b”.
There may be other reference characters mentioned in the description not present in the drawings. Applicant may want to ensure conformity between the description and the drawings, as well as vice versa.
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. 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
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 of this title, 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.
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, 2, 4-6, 11, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200292771 of Sekine et al. (Sekine) in view of legal precedent, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190285823 of Tanaka et al. (Tanaka), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060088261 of Berkey et al. (Berkey).
With respect to claim 1, Sekine discloses a fiber optic cable assembly (Fig. 2, ¶¶ 69 et seq.; also Figs. 1A-3B) comprising:
a first cable leg (optical fiber 2, right side) comprising a first optical fiber core (optical fiber part 2A, right side; "The optical fiber part 2A is constituted with a core and a clad.", ¶ 69),
a first cladding (the cladding portion of optical fiber part 2A, right side) surrounding the first optical fiber core (per common optical fiber construction),
a first coating (sheath layer 2B with colored layer 2C, right side) surrounding the first cladding (2A, right side), and
a first tight buffer (¶ 70, right side of 2, "An ultraviolet curing resin can be exemplified as a connection material 5 constituting the connection part 3.") surrounding and in contact with the first coating (per Fig. 2);
a second cable leg (optical fiber 2, left side) comprising a second optical fiber core (optical fiber part 2A, left side; "The optical fiber part 2A is constituted with a core and a clad.", ¶ 69),
a second cladding (the cladding portion of optical fiber part 2A, left side) surrounding the second optical fiber core (per common optical fiber construction),
a second coating (sheath layer 2B with colored layer 2C, left side) surrounding the second cladding (2A, left side), and
a second tight buffer (¶ 70, left side of 2, "An ultraviolet curing resin can be exemplified as a connection material 5 constituting the connection part 3.") surrounding and in contact with the second coating (per Fig. 2); and
a buffer connecting region (connection part 3) connecting the first tight buffer (5, right) and the second tight buffer (5, left), wherein
the buffer connecting region comprises a maximum thickness that is less than a maximum outer thickness dimension of the first tight buffer and that is less than a maximum outer thickness dimension of the second tight buffer (per Fig. 2 and relative dimensions/size, below); wherein
each of the first cable leg and the second cable leg is devoid of a surrounding jacket (there is no other jacket/coating) and is devoid of any tensile strength member (there is no strength member).
Sekine as set forth above does not disclose:
the first tight buffer comprising a truncated round- or oval-shaped first lobe, with the first tight buffer having a maximum layer thickness greater than a maximum layer thickness of the first coating, and with the first optical fiber core being offset relative to a centroid of the first lobe;
the second tight buffer comprising a truncated round-or oval-shaped second lobe, with the second tight buffer having a maximum layer thickness greater than a maximum layer thickness of the second coating, and with the second optical fiber core being offset relative to a centroid of the second lobe;
the first lobe and the second lobe are truncated by a virtual overlap of the respective first and second lobes at the buffer connecting region where truncated portions of the first lobe and the second lobe contact one another,
wherein a width of the fiber optic cable assembly, in a direction parallel to an imaginary line extending through the first and second optical fiber cores, is less than a sum of the maximum outer thickness dimension of the first tight buffer and the maximum outer thickness dimension of the second tight buffer,
with the maximum outer thickness dimension of each of the first tight buffer and the second tight buffer being perpendicular to the width of the fiber optic cable assembly;
Tanaka discloses a method for manufacturing intermittent bonding type optical fiber ribbon and intermittent bonding type optical fiber ribbon that includes (Figs. 15 and 16 in light of Fig. 1, ¶¶ 37, 38, 109, 110, and adjacents, ¶¶ 113-130 for list of reference signs):
the first tight buffer (second annular coating from center of fibers 1 of Figs. 15 and 16, corresponding to secondary coating 12 in Fig. 1) comprises a truncated round-or oval-shaped first lobe (Fig. 16, flanking areas at 4);
the second tight buffer (third annular coating from center of fibers 1 of Figs. 15 and 16, corresponding to color coating 13 in Fig. 1) comprises a truncated round-or oval-shaped second lobe (Fig. 16, flanking areas at 4);
and the first lobe and the second lobe are truncated by a virtual overlap of the respective first and second lobes at the buffer connecting region (central area 3 of Fig. 16 there and in light of the truncated areas shown by the flanking areas at 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an assembly configuration along the lines of Tanaka in a system according to Sekine as set forth above in order to provide protected connection between separate individual fibers. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber optic cable) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
As a possibly helpful insight for Applicant regarding lobed optical fiber structures, see also U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030118301 of Hurley et al. (Hurley) which is seen to show the missing elements of Sekine, above.
Berkey discloses a rare earth doped single polarization double clad optical fiber and a method for making such fiber that includes (¶ 68):
The silica based inner cladding 14 may have a circular outer perimeter, as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1C (preferably with an off-center situated core), or a non-circular outer perimeter as shown in FIGS. 2A, 2B and 2D, 2F.
As such, cores that are off-center are seen as known in the art and would be applicable to the cores in each lobe of Sekine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to off-center cores along the lines of Berkey in a system according to Sekine in view of Tanaka as set forth above in order to provide additional optical options in a known manner, including possible operational aspects regarding the associated cladding. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber optic cable) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Lastly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
As the scope of claim 1 departs from that of Sekine only with regards to the relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device of Sekine as set forth above.
Sekine is not limited to any specific size or dimension in its coatings, covering, jackets, or otherwise. No benefit or advantage is indicated in the present application due to any thickness or relative width of the coatings, covering, jackets, or otherwise.
Herein and below, this analysis is referred to as “relative dimensions/size”.
Further, the combination would then provide:
the first tight buffer comprising a truncated round- or oval-shaped first lobe (Tanaka), with the first tight buffer having a maximum layer thickness greater than a maximum layer thickness of the first coating (relative dimensions/size), and with the first optical fiber core being offset relative to a centroid of the first lobe (Berkey);
the second tight buffer comprising a truncated round-or oval-shaped second lobe (Tanaka), with the second tight buffer having a maximum layer thickness greater than a maximum layer thickness of the second coating (relative dimensions/size), and with the second optical fiber core being offset relative to a centroid of the second lobe (Berkey);
the first lobe and the second lobe are truncated by a virtual overlap of the respective first and second lobes at the buffer connecting region where truncated portions of the first lobe and the second lobe contact one another (Tanaka),
wherein a width of the fiber optic cable assembly, in a direction parallel to an imaginary line extending through the first and second optical fiber cores, is less than a sum of the maximum outer thickness dimension of the first tight buffer and the maximum outer thickness dimension of the second tight buffer (relative dimensions/size),
with the maximum outer thickness dimension of each of the first tight buffer and the second tight buffer being perpendicular to the width of the fiber optic cable assembly (relative dimensions/size).
With respect to claim 2, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, including one wherein
the first tight buffer,
the second tight buffer, and
the buffer connecting region comprise extruded polymeric material.
The "ultraviolet curing resin" of connection material 5 (¶ 70) is seen as a polymer.
The phrase "extruded polymeric material" is seen to indicate a product achieved by a process, or “product by process”.
Under MPEP § 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). MPEP § 2113.
Consequently, as the same structure is maintained, claim 2 is obvious in light of the disclosure in Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above.
With respect to claim 4, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, including one wherein
the buffer connecting region is configured to be locally torn by manually pulling apart a portion of the first cable leg and a portion of the second cable leg.
The cable in Sekine is seen as so configured. ¶ 116, Figs. 10A/B.
With respect to claim 5, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, including one wherein
the first tight buffer comprises an outer diameter of no greater than 1.6 mm, and the second tight buffer comprises an outer diameter of no greater than 1.6 mm.
"A diameter of the sheath layer 2B is about 240 μm", ¶ 69.
With respect to claim 6, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, including one wherein
the first tight buffer comprises an outer diameter of no greater than 1 mm, and the second tight buffer comprises an outer diameter of no greater than 1 mm.
"A diameter of the sheath layer 2B is about 240 μm", ¶ 69.
With respect to claim 11, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, including one wherein
the maximum thickness of the buffer connecting region is less than 50% of the maximum outer thickness dimension of the first buffer, and
is less than 50% of the maximum outer thickness dimension of the second buffer.
By visual inspection of Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 25, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, including one wherein:
the first tight buffer has a maximum outer thickness direction in a range of from about 900 pm to about 1.6 mm;
and the second tight buffer has a maximum outer thickness direction in a range of from about 900 pm to about 1.6 mm.
Relative dimensions/size.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4147407 of Eichenbaum et al. (Eichenbaum).
With respect to claim 3, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, but not one wherein
the buffer connecting region comprises at least one of a thermally welded interface or a solvent welded interface between the first tight buffer and the second tight buffer.
Eichenbaum discloses a coatings for fiber waveguides that includes:
"In one embodiment pursuant to this aspect of the invention the separate coatings placed around adjacent fibers are later bridged together in a web section as by solvent welding or alternatively, ultrasonic bonding or fusion bonding."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermal (including ultrasonic), solvent or other welding along the lines of Eichenbaum in a system according to Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above in order to fix the two fibers together. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber optic cable) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200192023 of Brown et al. (Brown).
With respect to claim 7, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, but not one wherein
each of the first cladding and the second cladding comprises a titanium dioxide coating.
Brown discloses a high-density optical fiber ribbon with cladding-strengthened glass optical fibers in a common protective coating and fiber ribbon interconnects employing same that includes (¶ 11):
"In one aspect, a strengthened outer cladding is made by doping silica glass with titanium dioxide (TiO.sub.2)."
See also ¶¶ 23 et seq. and 76.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cladding having titania/titanium dioxide along the lines of Brown in a system according to Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above in order to strengthen the optical fibers. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber optic cable) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
With respect to claim 9, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, but not one further comprising
at least one connector terminating a proximal end of the first cable leg and terminating a proximal end of the second cable leg.
Brown, Fig. 10C shows such a connector on the left side of the figure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a terminating connector along the lines of Brown in a system according to Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above in order to provide coordinated connectability for the optical fiber cable. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber optic cable) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
With respect to claim 10, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 9, including one wherein
the at least one connector comprises a first connector terminating the proximal end of the first cable leg and a second connector terminating the proximal end of the second cable leg.
Brown, Fig. 10C shows such a connector on the right side of the figure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a terminating connector along the lines of Brown in a system according to Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above in order to provide independent connectability for the optical fiber cable. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber optic cable) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine as set forth above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160334587 of Isenhour (Isenhour).
With respect to claim 8, Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above discloses the fiber optic cable assembly of claim 1, but not one further comprising
a first ferrule bonded to the first cladding with heat curable epoxy, and
a second ferrule bonded to the second cladding with heat curable epoxy.
Isenhour discloses a fiber optic cable assemblies for terminating fiber optic cables and methods of making that includes (¶ 35):
"By way of example, the filler or bonding agent may be radiation curable epoxy such as a visible light curable epoxy or an ultraviolet (UV) light curable epoxy, a heat curable epoxy, adhesive, resin, glue, or the like for securing the same."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heat-curable epoxy along the lines of Isenhour in a system according to Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above in order to attach an optical component to a connector component, including a ferrule to an optical fiber at its cladding. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a fiber optic cable) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
In Applicant's reply submitted on July 22, 2025, Applicant specifically pointed to paragraph [0065] of the specification as providing a definition "decoupling travel distance" Da in claims 12-13, noting that "[i]f a spring is compressed to a second length L2A, L2B by which a proximal end 111A, 111B of a ferrule 110A, 110B moves (in a longitudinally inward direction) a distance that exceeds a distance Dd (which depends on the existence and size of any gaps between the lips 102A, 102B and the medial shoulders 96A, 96B), then contact may be lost between proximal ends 111A, 111B of the ferrules 110A, 110B and optical signal transmission may be curtailed" such that "the distance Dd will be referred to in this disclosure as 'decoupling distance Dd'or'decoupling travel distance Dd."'
Examiner response: Examiner may be mistaken, but the plain reading of the language indicates that the decoupling distance is a term of common parlance and in the context of the specification as originally filed, reference figure Dd is not seen as having particular lexicographical uniqueness.
Per MPEP § 2111.01(IV), "To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess."
Additionally, there is no length L1B in the drawings (hence, the objection).
Lastly, the specific paragraph cited should be ¶ 66, not ¶ 65. In its response, Applicant has made reference to the published application. For appeal purposes, all references to the specification must consistent with the official record of prosecution. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(a)(iii). Reference to the patent application publication does not satisfy this requirement. Examiner strongly urges Applicant to make its best record and to only refer to the specification of record by page and line number per 37 C.F.R. § 41.37.
Applicant respectfully submits that the holding of Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. is inapposite to the facts of the present case. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. involved U.S. Patent No. 3,452,447 directed to a device for drying ink used on high-gloss paper, by which a continuous sheet of paper called a web is supported and positioned on one zone or between two opposed zones of static air under superatmospheric pressure. Claim 1 of such patent included a means for moving a moving web in which "the minimum spacing between the web and said plate being a distance at least approximately twice as great as the nozzle slot width, the maximum spacing of the plate from the web never being greater than the width of the plate, and the product of the width of the plate and the spacing of the plate from the web being less than twenty times the nozzle slot width.” The cited prior art (U.S. Patent No. 3,181,250 to Vits) was found to read on every element recited in claim 1 except for the dimensional limitations, which were viewed by the trial court as "artificial dimensional limitations that add nothing to the claims, that are of no constructive significance, and are essentially meaningless.' On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that "no unique pressure profile arises from the combination specified [in claim 1]," and no clear error was found in the trial court's conclusion that the dimensional limitations did not specify a device which performed and operated any differently from the prior art."
Examiner response: The principle set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) as derived from the Gardner case are seen as good. Gardner is not seen to be restricted to only its facts. The elements in Sekine are able to operate on any scale and that scale is seen to apply to Applicant’s claims.
Assuming comparable dimensions for respective lobes containing fiber cores, the fiber optic cable assembly according to Applicant's FIG. 5 is significantly smaller in width than fiber optic cable assemblies disclosed by Sekine, due to the truncated form of the first lobe and second lobe by their virtual overlap at the buffer connecting region, wherein a width of the fiber optic cable assembly, in a direction parallel to an imaginary line extending through the first and second optical fiber cores, is less than a sum of the maximum outer thickness dimension of the first tight buffer and the maximum outer thickness dimension of the second tight buffer. This enables a greater number (higher density) of fiber optic cores to occupy a given volume, such as a conduit. The dimensional ratio recited in Applicant's claim 1 therefore confers a meaningful qualitative benefit over the prior art, contrary to the situation found by the court in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. This provides a first reason support withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 premised on Sekine.
Examiner response: Due to the available scaling (either greater or lesser) in Sekine, denser core numbers are also seen to be available to a system/cable according to Sekine and the combination of Sekine in view of Tanaka and Berkey as set forth above.
The Advisory Action asserts that "Applicant has not shown how the relative dimensions between the first and second tight buffers would operate any differently than optical fibers without them.” Applicant disagrees. As noted above, claim 1 provides a truncated form of the first lobe and second lobe by their virtual overlap at the buffer connecting region, wherein a width of the fiber optic cable assembly (in a direction parallel to an imaginary line extending through the first and second optical fiber cores) is less than a sum of the maximum outer thickness dimension of the first tight buffer and the maximum outer thickness dimension of the second tight buffer. This differs from the case of Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., which involved "artificial dimensional limitations that add nothing to the claims, that are of no constructive significance, and are essentially meaningless" wherein "no unique pressure profile arises from the combination specified [in claim 1].” Applicant has identified a technical benefit provided by the configuration of claim 1 that is not conferred by a device according to Sekine.
Examiner response: Per above, the scaling available from Sekine is seen to read on Applicant’s claims.
As noted previously herein, claim 1 has been amended to include the recitation that "the first lobe and the second lobe are truncated by a virtual overlap of the respective first and second lobes at the buffer connecting region where truncated portions of the first lobe and the second lobe contact one another.” This feature is not disclosed by or derivable from Tanaka. As shown in FIG. 16 of Tanaka, ribbon-forming material 7 is irradiated to form non-connection portions 4 between coated optical fibers of a ribbon. Where these non-connection portions 4 are formed, no "buffer connection region" exists. Moreover, to the extent that the center two fibers of Tanaka FIG. 16 are somehow considered to embody truncated lobes due to presence of the non-connection portions 4, the truncated portions of the lobes are not in contact with one another as required by amended claim 1.
Examiner response: Tanaka Figs. 15 and 16 are seen to complement each other in the understanding of such contact. Comparing these figures and elements 3 and 4 in Fig. 16, the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would see the virtual overlap of the first and second lobes as it almost exactly matches that in Applicant’s drawings and disclosure.
The Advisory Action contends that "the rejection is not rebutted as Fig. 15 [of Tanaka] shows that Applicant says Fig. 16 does not.” Applicant respectfully disagrees. FIG. 15 of Tanaka (reproduced below) discloses a ribbon 21 having four coated optical fibers joined by ribbon- forming material 7 that surrounds the respective optical fibers. It is respectfully submitted that FIG. 15 of Tanaka fails to disclose tight buffer layers forming first and second lobes that are truncated by a virtual overlap of the respective lobes at a buffer connecting region, with the first tight buffer having a maximum layer thickness greater than a maximum layer thickness of the first coating, and with the second tight buffer having a maximum layer thickness greater than a maximum layer thickness of the second coating, according to claim 1. FIG. 15 of Tanaka (reproduced below), as well as FIG. 16, clearly show that the ribbon forming material 7 is thinner than the underlying coating layer(s) of each optical fiber, and in this respect the ribbon forming material 7 of Tanaka does not entail a "tight buffer" according to claim 1.
Examiner response: One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP § 2145(IV).
Applicant argues Tanaka without taking into account Sekine. Applicant may be taking examiner’s comments out of context and, in doing so, rob such comments of their intended (and plain) meaning as Applicant’s initial point in the response after final was to address those elements of Tanaka relevant to the rejection. Here, Applicant now includes those elements previously addressed by Sekine in the combination.
As such, the rejection is not rebutted.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20230168441 A1 published June 1, 2023 was previously cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to off-center cores for optical fibers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
February 6, 2026