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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed January 19, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1, “is a is a polyolefin” should be changed to “is a polyolefin” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14-20 and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson et al. (EP 2700991 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Kirkpatrick et al. (US 11,022,769 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Gunnarsson discloses a method of manufacturing a fiber unit for use as a fiber optic cable and a fiber optic cable (100 in Fig. 1) comprising at least one fiber unit wherein said fiber unit comprises one or more optical fibers (101) embedded in a solid resin material (102; paragraph 0010) to form a coated fiber bundle and a polymer sheath (103) covering the coated fiber bundle, wherein the polymer sheath of each said fiber unit comprises a polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) polymer (paragraph 0012).
Still regarding claims 1 and 20, Gunnarsson teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the polymer sheath comprising a friction reducing additive. Kirkpatrick discloses a fiber optic cable sheath material comprising at least one friction reducing additive, wherein said friction reducing additive comprises polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) in a polyether carrier material in claim 31. Since both inventions relate to optical cables, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a friction reducing additive as disclosed by Kirkpatrick in the optical fiber cable of Gunnarsson in order to enhance slip and facilitate installation. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the carrier from a polyolefin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Finally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed siloxane content, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the percentages by weight of the PBT polymer and the friction reducing additive. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed percentages since Gunnarsson discloses the polymer being the main component, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the carrier material being a low-density polyethylene. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use low-density polyethylene as the carrier, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating an ultra-high molecular weight PDMS in a polyacrylate carrier material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed percentage of PDMS since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Gunnarsson further discloses the solid resin material is a UV-cured resin such as an acrylate material in paragraph 0010. The proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the tensile modulus greater than 100 MPa. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed tensile modulus in order to provide sufficient protection for the optical fibers, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 14, 23 and 27, Gunnarsson discloses a single fiber unit whose outermost layer is said PBT sheath, fiber optic cable being adapted to be installed in a duct by blowing in paragraph 0012.
Regarding claim 15, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the thickness of the PBT sheath. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed thickness in order to provide sufficient protection for the optical fibers, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Gunnarsson further discloses the number of optical fibers including any mechanical fiber is up to four in Fig. 1. The proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the outer diameter. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed outer diameter since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the fiber optic cable is further adapted to be installed by pushing. However, pushing and pulling are known to be art-recognized equivalents to blowing, and as such one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to install the optical fiber by pushing as a matter of obvious design choice depending on the application. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed outer diameter since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 18, 22 and 26, Gunnarsson discloses one or more strength members embedded with the optical fibers since the additional optical fibers within the outer jacket provide some at least some degree of strength.
Regarding claim 19, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating at least one of the optical fibers terminated with a ferrule. However, ferrules are ubiquitous in the art of optical fibers and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to terminate at least one end of an optical fiber with a blowable optical ferrule in order to facilitate connection to additional optical fibers.
Regarding claims 24 and 28, Gunnarsson discloses the at least one fiber unit comprises two or more optical fibers in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 25 and 29, Gunnarsson discloses the at least one fiber unit comprises only one optical fiber in the abstract and claim 1.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson et al. (EP 2700991 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Kirkpatrick et al. (US 11,022,769 B2), further in view of Hennink et al. (US 2014/0112630 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a plurality of fiber units. Hennink discloses a fiber optic cable (1 in Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of said fiber units (3) extending in parallel with one another and being arranged within a polymer tube (2), the fiber units being free to slide relative to one another and relative to the tube (see abstract; buffer tubes are described as being “loose buffer tubes”) such that a selected fiber unit can be accessed and re-directed by forming an opening in a wall of the tube and withdrawing a length of the selected fiber unit through the opening (paragraphs 0098-0099). Since all of the inventions relate to optical fiber cables, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a plurality of fiber units as disclosed by Hennink in the optical fiber cable of the proposed combination of Gunnarsson and Kirkpatrick for the purpose of increasing the density of the device. Further, using an extrusion die to extrude sheaths or jackets is ubiquitous in the art and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to feed a plurality of fiber units together as a bundle through a central opening in an extrusion die, while extruding said polymer tube through said die around the bundle; and drawing said polymer tube and bundle through the extrusion die while controlling process parameters to draw and cool the polymer tube in order to use standard optical fiber cable manufacturing procedures to form a robust outer layer and thus provide protection to the optical fiber components.
Regarding claim 10, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson, Kirkpatrick and Hennink teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the thickness of the PBT sheath. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed thickness in order to provide sufficient protection for the optical fibers, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson, Kirkpatrick and Hennink teaches the claimed invention except for the lining of the extruded polymer tube comprises primarily high density polyethylene (HDPE). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the lining of the polymer tube from HDPE in order to enhance the durability, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, Gunnarsson discloses one or more strength members integrated in a wall of the tube since the additional optical fibers within the outer jacket provide some degree of strength.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson et al. (EP 2700991 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Kirkpatrick et al. (US 11,022,769 B2), further in view of Hennink et al. (US 2014/0112630 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement), and further in view of Watson (EP 1004914 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the proposed combination of Gunnarsson, Kirkpatrick and Hennink teaches the claimed invention except for an inner surface of the extruded polymer tube formed with projections. Watson discloses a fiber optic cable (Fig. 1) comprising an extruded polymer tube (2) having an inner surface formed with projections (10) effective to reduce an area of contact between material of the tube and a fiber unit (6). Since all of the inventions relate to optical fiber cables, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form an inner surface of the extruded polymer tube with projections as disclosed by Watson in the optical fiber cable of the proposed combination of Gunnarsson, Kirkpatrick and Hennink for the purpose of reducing friction between the polymer tube and the inner fiber units.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed January 19, 2026, with respect to prior art rejection of claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 2, 2026