DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on November 21, 2025. Claims 1-15 and 17-30 remain pending (claims 20 and 24-30 are “Withdrawn” from consideration as being related to non-elected Groups).
Claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are examined herein, with claims 1 and 12 in independent form, and are finally rejected.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on August 1, 2025, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagasawa et al. JP 63-125903 A (cited in the IDS filed March 1, 2023).
Nagasawa et al. JP 63-125903 A teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-4; corresponding English translation, entire document; Claims) an optical cable member / a towing member (overall pulling feature device in Figs. 1-3, for example), comprising: an optical cable 1 including at least one optical fiber 3 and a tensile strength member 2 each extending in a longitudinal direction (to the left direction, Figs. 1-3), in which a cable main body (at right, 1) housing the at least one optical fiber and the tensile strength member and a cable exposure portion (left side of the cable 1 is exposed for connectivity) at which the at least one optical fiber and the tensile strength member are exposed to an outside (at some point “exposed”) are provided along the longitudinal direction; a fixing member (overall fixing occurs as part of 13 / 14 / 16 to fix the strength member 2) fixing the tensile strength member at the cable exposure portion (Fig. 2 lower portion); a first housing tube 17 (also above 4 there is a tubular feature for the cable; a grip fitting / housing) disposed between the fixing member and the cable main body, the first housing tube being a bendable member (note frame-of-reference for “bending”, see comments below) housing (protecting) the tensile strength member at/in the cable exposure portion therein, and allowing the at least one optical fiber at/in the cable exposure portion to extend therein (Fig. 2); and a second housing tube 18 disposed on a side opposite to the first housing tube housing at/in the fixing member in the longitudinal direction, the second housing tube housing the at least one optical fiber at/in the cable exposure portion therein, wherein the second housing tube is a bendable member (note breath of “bendable” in the context of a US patent claim), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claims 1 and 12. Noting claim 1, there is no “towing” language. Noting claim 12, the towing occurs at 31.
Regarding the added “being a bendable member” language into independent claims 1 and 12, the first tube 17 (also above 4 there is a tubular feature for the cable; a grip fitting / housing) can be considered “bendable”, without other context of the specific bending properties of the first tube being claimed. There are ways in which someone having ordinary skill in the art could bend the overall first tube (17 and/or 4). The breadth of a term such as bendable is noted, as bending occurs in nearly every element on earth. Diamonds are even known to bend, even if this is a very small bend. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the elements 17 (and/or above 4 for a tubular feature) can be “bendable” as there is no other context (material property, etc.) to limit this feature more narrowly in the claim itself.
Note also the Written Opinion from corresponding PCT JP ‘000, which the Examiner fully incorporates herein and agrees with such material, regarding independent claims 1 and 12 (Section 2 of PCT JP ‘000).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the first housing at least has an outer diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the second housing (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the length of the first housing tube is substantially shorter than the second housing tube (Figs. 2-3), thus it is clear from these figures that the 2nd housing tube is at least three times the length of the 1st housing tube.
Regarding claim 6, at least one of the housing tubes are flexible and metallic (corrugated metallic and shaped like a hose).
Regarding dependent claims 7-9, 15, and 17-19, all such structural features of these claims are found within Nagasawa JP ‘903. Note in particular the comments and discussion found in the JP Written Opinion from PCT JP ‘000 regarding these dependencies (Section 2). Therefore, claims 7-9, 15, and 17-19 are each anticipated by Nagasawa JP ‘903 and rejected herein.
Regarding claim 22, as the attachment and connectivity of the optical cable and first housing tube are shown in Figs. 1-3, such structural connection meets the language of a fitting, at Fig. 2, at elements 13 / 14 / 15 / 16, because the features are fit together with multiple sub-units.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa et al. JP 63-125903 A, as applied to claims 1 and 12, and further in view of JP 9-230186 A (both cited in the IDS filed on March 1, 2023).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Nagasawa et al. JP 63-125903 A teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-4; corresponding English translation, entire document; Claims) an optical cable member / a towing member (overall pulling feature device in Figs. 1-3, for example), comprising: an optical cable 1 including at least one optical fiber 3 and a tensile strength member 2 each extending in a longitudinal direction (to the left direction, Figs. 1-3), in which a cable main body (at right, 1) housing the at least one optical fiber and the tensile strength member and a cable exposure portion (left side of the cable 1 is exposed for connectivity) at which the at least one optical fiber and the tensile strength member are exposed to an outside (at some point “exposed”) are provided along the longitudinal direction; a fixing member (overall fixing occurs as part of 13 / 14 / 16 to fix the strength member 2) fixing the tensile strength member at/in the cable exposure portion (Fig. 2 lower portion); a first housing tube 17 (also above 4 there is a tubular feature for the cable; a grip fitting / housing) disposed between the fixing member and the cable main body, the first housing tube being a bendable member (note frame-of-reference for “bending”, see comments above), the first housing tube housing (protecting) the tensile strength member at/in the cable exposure portion therein, and allowing the at least one optical fiber at/in the cable exposure portion to extend therein (Fig. 2); and a second housing tube 18 disposed on a side opposite to the first housing tube housing at/in the fixing member in the longitudinal direction, the second housing tube housing the at least one optical fiber at/in the cable exposure portion therein, wherein the second housing tube is a bendable member (note breath of “bendable” in the context of a US patent claim).
Regarding further dependent claims 3 and 14, there is no express and exact teaching found in Nagasawa for the bendable features, with permissible extent relationships of the 1st to the 2nd housing tubes, or 300 mm to 500 mm bending radius.
JP 9-230186 A teaches (ABS; Fig. 1; paragraphs [0002], [0009] – [0016]; Claims) similar bendable features and permissible extents in relationship and comparison of the 1st and 2nd housing tubes (Fig. 1). The flexibilities and functionality are shown in Fig. 1 to allow the bending movements and variability is use of the tubes. Such bending radius of 300 mm to 500 mm would be within the level or ordinary skill to get the 1st housing tube to fit through a pipe during pulling.
Since Nagasawa and JP ‘186 are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by JP ‘186 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Nagasawa.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of JP ‘186, to have the first housing tube member in a designed configuration to also be bendable and in a relationship shown where the permissible extend of the bending radius of the 1st housing tube is smaller than the 2nd housing tube (or having defined 300 mm to 500 mm minimum bending radius), into the base design of the optical cable member of Nagasawa, to allow for different utile designs of the member in towing/pulling relationships for allow for the optical cable to enter / traverse different environments, for improving the functional operation of the towing / pulling (such as in a pipe or tube). Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of the 1st housing tube having such bendable design, or 300 – 500 mm minimum bending radius. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claims 3 and 14 are found obvious over Nagasawa and further in view of JP ‘186.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa et al. JP 63-125903 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP 63-206708 A (both cited in the IDS filed on March 1, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Nagasawa et al. JP 63-125903 A teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-4; corresponding English translation, entire document; Claims) an optical cable member / a towing member (overall pulling feature device in Figs. 1-3, for example), comprising: an optical cable 1 including at least one optical fiber 3 and a tensile strength member 2 each extending in a longitudinal direction (to the left direction, Figs. 1-3), in which a cable main body (at right, 1) housing the at least one optical fiber and the tensile strength member and a cable exposure portion (left side of the cable 1 is exposed for connectivity) at which the at least one optical fiber and the tensile strength member are exposed to an outside (at some point “exposed”) are provided along the longitudinal direction; a fixing member (overall fixing occurs as part of 13 / 14 / 16 to fix the strength member 2) fixing the tensile strength member at/in the cable exposure portion (Fig. 2 lower portion); a first housing tube 17 (also above 4 there is a tubular feature for the cable; a grip fitting / housing) disposed between the fixing member and the cable main body, the first housing tube being a bendable member (note frame-of-reference for “bending”, see comments above), the first housing tube housing (protecting) the tensile strength member at/in the cable exposure portion therein, and allowing the at least one optical fiber at/in the cable exposure portion to extend therein (Fig. 2); and a second housing tube 18 disposed on a side opposite to the first housing tube housing at/in the fixing member in the longitudinal direction, the second housing tube housing the at least one optical fiber at/in the cable exposure portion therein, wherein the second housing tube is a bendable member (note breath of “bendable” in the context of a US patent claim).
Regarding further dependent claim 10, there is no express and exact teaching found in Nagasawa to have many optical fibers, such as 1000 or more fibers.
JP 63-206708 A teaches (ABS; Figs.; page 2, lower right column, lines 16 through page 3, upper left column, line 3) that in a tensile terminal holding optical fiber, that very large numbers of fibers are known, such as over 1000, in order to improve capacity and how much bandwidth of optical communications may be carried through a cable housing terminal. Such amount(s) of optical fibers being over 1000 is known and would have been recognized as typical amount of fibers that may be housed and protected through tubes/sheaths.
Since Nagasawa and JP ‘708 are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by JP ‘708 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Nagasawa.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of JP ‘708, to have many optical fibers, such as over 1000, into the base design of the optical cable member of Nagasawa, to allow for different utile designs the overall cable and to increase capacity substantially for more transmission of optical data (such as in a pipe or tube). Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation for a normally skilled artisan to add fibers to a tube design. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claim 10 is found obvious over Nagasawa and further in view of JP ‘708.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 13, 17, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa et al. JP 63-125903 A, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, standing alone.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 7, 11, 13, 17, 21, and 23, there is no express and exact teaching found in the primary prior art reference of Nagasawa for such features.
However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such found in further dependencies off of the main rejected claims 1 and 12, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nagasawa to perform equally well with such features as the formed interrelations of the tow cable, or optical member for containing optical fiber(s) within a structural and protective housing, in order to improve optical operation and design by maintaining those features within and protected by the two housing tube design within intermediate fixing member, for flexibility and bendability while towing/pulling, and in particular because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signals propagation for the fiber(s) by shielding unwanted stimuli that may cause errors. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with an optical cable member / towing device such as in Nagasawa. Further, the base structure of the independent claim is anticipated by Nagasawa. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify Nagasawa to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 7, 11, 13, 17, 21, and 23. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
See also and note in particular the comments and discussion found in the JP Written Opinion from PCT JP ‘000 regarding these dependencies of claims 2, 11, 13, and 21 (Section 2). Claim 23 is obvious for similar logic and design choices, while claims 7/17 are also viewed as obvious design choices for the “pin” features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2025 (pages 10-12) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has not amended all features of original dependent claim 3 into claim 1. Applicant merely amended “being a bendable member” into claims 1/12. Further, the term “bendable” is a broad frame-of-reference and is met by the prior art structure of Nagasawa ‘903 because such structure could be bent if desired by a technician or machine. There is no other context of being “bendable” other than such language itself. Further overall “first housing tube” is also recited as the part above 4 in the Fig. 2. One and/or both of these features can be “bendable” in a broad frame-of-reference. Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are still anticipated by Nagasawa ‘903 because such reference still makes “bendable” met by the prior art in a frame-of-reference analysis of the plain claim language itself.
Claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are finally rejected herein, based on such amendments. Notably, dependent claim 3 is still rejected under the secondary prior art to JP ‘186, because such prior art teaches bendable features with specific comparisons between different tubular features.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A, N, and U, pertain to featured prior art that is used above (reference N to JP ‘186, with English translation with reference U), and the flexible tubular features of Pina US ‘184 (reference A).
Applicant's amendment July 10, 2025 necessitated any shifts of ground(s), or new ground(s) of rejection, as presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant is invited to make further substantial structural additions of features into both independent claims 1 and 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 5, 2026