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 December 22, 2022.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as September 28, 2020, the date of the earliest priority application (JAPAN 2020-162360) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
PCT international application number PCT/JP2021/035382 filed September 27, 2021.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 22, 2022, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
JP
2022552101
09/27/2021
JP WO2022065485 A1
03/31/2022
JP
PCT/JP2021/035382
09/27/2021
WO 2022065485 A1
03/31/2022
EP
21872611
09/27/2021
EP 4220260 A1
EP 4220260 A4
08/02/2023
03/20/2024
The claims filed February 27, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the request for continued examination/RCE filing of March 16, 2026.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1 & 5
1 & 4-8
Cancelled:
none
7 & 8
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
none
none
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1 and 5 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-6 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the fifth 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 February 27, 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).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200409005 of Sato et al. (Sato, cited by Applicant as WO 2019-142841 for which this US counterpart publication is considered to be a translation thereof) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0011277 of Bookbinder et al. (Bookbinder) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0106906 of Sakabe et al. (Sakabe, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Sato discloses an optical fiber cable (Fig. 1, ¶ 40 et seq., optical fiber cable 1A) comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers (¶ 41, "subunit 20 formed by bundling a plurality of optical fiber ribbons 10"),
a sheath coating a periphery of the plurality of optical fibers (ribs 2 and sheath 5 form slot groove 3 and surround the optical fibers),
a first lid (thin-skin-shaped tube 30A, ¶ 43) covering a periphery of a part of the plurality of optical fibers (e.g., at top of Fig. 1), and
a second lid (thin-skin-shaped tube 30A, ¶ 43) covering a periphery of another part of the plurality of optical fibers (e.g., to the left or right of the tube 30A at the top), the second lid being arranged outside the first lid (neither lid is within the other and so both are outside the other),
a number of the plurality of optical fibers per unit area of the optical fiber cable in a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber cable is more than 6.3 fibers/mm2 and 12.6 fibers/mm2 or less (relative dimensions/size, see below),
the number of the cores per unit area of the optical fiber cable is more than 25.2 cores/mm2 and 50.4 cores/mm2 or less (Sato discloses that (¶ 36) that "Core density of optical fibers housed in the optical fiber cable may be equal to or greater than 5.0 cores/mm2.” Such an open-ended range is seen to include "the number of the cores per unit area of the optical fiber cable is more than 25.2 cores/mm2 and 50.4 cores/mm2 or less.” Further, Sato discloses (¶ 55) "When the outer diameter of the fiber having a small diameter is equal to or less than 0.2 mm, the high-density can be achieved.” When the conversions are done, close packing of the fibers (1 mm2 / (πr2)) give the number of fibers per mm2. The result is 31.83 fibers per mm2. This is within the claimed range and consistent with the "high-density" goals of Sato.), and
an outer diameter of each of the plurality of optical fibers is 175 µm or more and 185 µm or less (relative dimensions/size).
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 Sato as set forth above only with regards to the relative dimensions ("optical fiber cable in a cross section,” "6.3 fibers/mm2 and 12.6 fibers/mm2 or less"), the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device of Sato as set forth above.
Any size or density of optical fiber, ribbon, or cable is discretionary with the manufacturer, purchaser, supplier, and/or user. Considerations include available space and signal wavelength.
Herein and below, this analysis is referred to as “relative dimensions/size”.
Sato as set forth above does not disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of optical fibers includes a plurality of cores,
the optical fiber cable further comprises a multi-core connector provided at one end of at least a part of the plurality of optical fibers, and
the multi-core connector includes three or more rows of holes,
each row of holes consisting of three or more holes.
Bookbinder discloses an SAP coating layer for cable component and related systems and methods that includes (¶ 21, Fig. 1):
In various embodiments, the optical fiber component may include a plurality of optical transmission elements, shown as optical fibers 18, located within bore 16. Optical fibers 18 can include a wide variety of optical fibers including multi-mode fibers, single mode fibers, bend insensitive fibers, multi-core optical fibers, etc.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multi-core fibers along the lines of Bookbinder in a system according to Sato as set forth above in order to provide greater signal density by providing more cores. 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 () to yield predictable results (a multi-core optical fiber 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).
Further, the combination would then provide:
wherein each of the plurality of optical fibers includes a plurality of cores.
Sakabe discloses a stranded optical cable with connectors that includes (Figs. 1A/B, ¶ 16):
As shown in FIG. 1A, the stranded optical cable with connectors according to the present invention includes a stranded optical cable 10 in which plural multicore optical cables 12 are stranded, and it is configured such that multicore optical connectors 21 are attached to those distal ends of the plural multicore optical cables 12 which have been exposed by removing a cable sheath 16 at both the ends of the stranded optical cable 10 as have certain lengths.
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 multicore connector for a multicore optical fiber cable along the lines of Sakabe in a system according to Sato in view of Bookbinder as set forth above as set forth above in order to enable connections with the fibers in such a multicore 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 (an optical fiber 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).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the optical fiber cable further comprises a multi-core connector provided at one end of at least a part of the plurality of optical fibers.
Mere duplication of parts has no distinguishing significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
In Sakabe, the multicore optical connectors 21 already show the duplication of a single row to provide parallel top and bottom rows (Fig. 4). It would be a mere duplication of parts to include another duplication to provide a third parallel row of fiber apertures 22b.
Further, any number of fibers (and therefor, fiber apertures) are contemplated in Sakabe per ¶ 22 ("Regarding the number of the optical fibers which constitutes the optical unit 13a, for example, about 12 optical fibers are bundled as one unit, and about 24 optical fibers are used as all the optical units, but the number of the optical fibers may be larger or smaller.") in light of the invention covering Figs. 3A and 4 (¶¶ 13 and 14).
As such, it would be obvious to provide:
the multi-core connector includes three or more rows of holes, each row of holes consisting of three or more holes.
Lastly, the combination as set forth above would provide:
wherein each of the plurality of optical fibers includes a plurality of cores,
the optical fiber cable further comprises a multi-core connector provided at one end of at least a part of the plurality of optical fibers, and
the multi-core connector includes three or more rows of holes, each row of holes consisting of three or more holes.
With respect to claim 2, Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cable according to claim 1, including one further comprising:
a plurality of assemblies (Sato, the ribbons 10 in each of the slot grooves 3) in which at least a part of the plurality of optical fibers (in ribbons 10) is bundled.
With respect to claim 3, Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cable according to claim 2, including one further comprising:
a plurality of tubes each having a thickness of 0.3 mm or less (¶ 43, "A thickness of the tube 30A is about 0.3 mm."), wherein
wherein each of the plurality of tubes covers periphery of corresponding one of the plurality of assemblies (per Fig. 1, the six slot grooves 3).
With respect to claim 4, Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cable according to claim 2, including one wherein
the plurality of optical fibers form a plurality of optical fiber ribbons arranged in parallel in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the plurality of optical fibers and coupled by a coupling resin (per Fig. 1),
in each of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons (10), a pitch average value among the plurality of optical fibers is 220 m or more and 280 m or less (relative dimensions/size), and
the plurality of optical fiber ribbons form the plurality of assemblies (per above and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cable according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the first lid and the second lid have water absorbency.
Sato does disclose (¶ 45) "A water absorbing yarn 40 having a waterproof function may be provided in the tube 30A."
Bookbinder discloses an SAP coating layer for cable component and related systems and methods that includes (¶ 25):
As noted above, in various embodiments, one or more cable component may be coated or covered within a continuous crosslinked or layer of SAP polymer material. In various embodiments, any of the cable components of cable 10 may be coated with an SAP coating as discussed herein. In general, the SAP materials discussed herein are polymeric materials that swell and absorb water. In this manner the SAP coatings discussed herein limit water propagation within cable 10 by swelling and absorbing water.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use water absorbent coating materials like SAP along the lines of Bookbinder in a system according to Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above in order to absorb water and keep the optical fibers from becoming moist. 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 (an optical fiber 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).
Further, the combination would then provide:
wherein the first lid and the second lid have water absorbency.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0223769 of Ito et al. (Ito).
With respect to claim 6, Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above discloses the optical fiber cable according to claim 1, but not one further comprising:
a plurality of tension members embedded in the sheath.
Ito discloses an optical fiber unit, optical fiber branching method, and optical fiber cable that includes (Fig. 1, ¶ 52):
“This optical fiber cable 1 includes: optical fiber units 10 (10A to 10C); a sheath 30; and tension members 40. . . . Tension members 40 are provided in the sheath 30.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tension members in optical fiber cable sheaths along the lines of Ito in a system according to Sato in view of Bookbinder and Sakabe as set forth above as set forth above in order to provide additional mechanical strength to the 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 (an optical fiber 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).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a plurality of tension members embedded in the sheath.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
Regarding the amended claim 1, none of Sato, Bookbinder and Sakabe, discloses, teaches or renders obvious an optical fiber cable comprising: ... a first lid covering a periphery of a part of the plurality of optical fibers, and a second lid covering a periphery of another part of the plurality of optical fibers, the second lid being arranged outside the first lid.
Examiner response: As set forth in the rejections, the two lids are separate and are outside of each other.
On the other hand, as shown below in the annotated FIG. 3 of Sato, the alleged second lid (TUBE 30B RIGHT) is NOT arranged outside the alleged first lid (TUBE 30B LEFT). Instead, the alleged first lid (TUBE 30B LEFT) and the alleged second lid (TUBE 30B RIGHT) are arranged right next to each other (i.e., adjacent to each other). The structure of the optical fiber cable disclosed in Sato is completely different from the structure of the optical fiber cable claimed in the amended claim 1.
Examiner response: As set forth in the rejections, the two lids are separate and are outside of each other.
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 20230305251 A1 published September 28, 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 concentric and/or coaxial optical cable structures similar to Applicant’s.
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
March 20, 2026