DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Three (3) sheets of drawings were filed on December 28th, 2022 by the applicant, and have accepted by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on September 5th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 14-15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 5th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections - 102
Applicant argues that the Laws has a different objective (controlling elongation vs. preventing water ingress).
The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. The test for anticipation under 102 is whether or not the prior art discloses every element of the claimed invention, regardless of the reference’s stated purpose or recognized advantages.
Applicant argues: the Examiner's assumption that the strength member's EVA coating in Laws is hydrophobic finds no clear support in the disclosure of Laws. The Examiner's statement that "the composition may be ethyl vinyl acetate, which is known to be hydrophobic" is based on incomplete information and overlooks the complex nature of EVA's molecular structure. Applicant then cites a source reciting compositional variability in EVA and the material properties that follow.
The examiner recognizes that the disclosure of Laws does not include a specific composition, but maintains that the required composition would be a motivated and obvious design choice for a skilled artisan.
The examiner has obtained additional technical evidence supporting the finding that EVA used in cable applications exhibits hydrophobic properties, and that a composition of 10-40% is standard in the art, making it an obvious design choice:
Azo Materials discloses EVA as a polymer, wherein the VA composition tends to vary between 10-40%. This expressly addresses the applicant’s remarks regarding the breakdown of hydrophobic properties beyond a VA of 40% and a need to confirm the material composition of the fibers in Laws. “The large majority of the copolymer's weight percentage is ethylene and the VA composition tends to vary between 10-40%” (Azo Materials: https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=412, May 9, 2001).
Elephchem discloses EVA and its industrial uses across a number of weight percentages. For coatings, values of 5-45% are typical, and for wire and cable specifically, the content is said to generally be 12%-24%. A skilled artisan is uncompelled to use non-hydrophobic EVA in the invention of Laws as it would lack thermal, abrasion, and waterproofing properties important to many use cases, and be ineffective in a final product.
As Laws provides no indication of a VA value beyond 40%, which would drastically alter the properties of the EVA material as corroborated by the applicant, and be uncharacteristic of typical applications of EVA in wiring and cable structures, the examiner observes that the material properties of the EVA used in Laws would meet the condition for hydrophobicity, and even were they not to, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use EVA in such a range unless a benefit is otherwise stated.
Applicant Argues: “Inherent enablement requires that the claimed feature or condition must be an unavoidable and necessary consequence of the prior art disclosure, rather than a mere possibility or probability. Here, while the prior art briefly references optical fiber cables with embedded strength members, it does not establish that the coating properties of the strength members are inevitably met. Without such inevitability, the prior art fails to inherently enable the claimed invention, as the desired characteristics may or may not occur, and thus require further development…”
The examiner acknowledges that lack of explicit disclosure and has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, and instead rejected claim 1 under new grounds with 35 U.S.C. 103 in combination with Fitz (US 6137936 A), described further below.
However, the examiner notes that the question is not whether Laws achieves perfect water ingression prevention (a functional result), but whether Laws discloses the claimed structural elements. All structural limitations of claim 1 are expressly present in Laws: optical fibers, core, sheath, embedded strength members coated with a hydrophobic material (EVA/EAA). The hydrophobic nature of standard EVA/EAA coatings is an inherent property existing regardless of whether Laws explicitly characterizes it as such.
Rejections - 103
Applicant argues: The jacket and the strength members serve completely different purposes and involve distinct manufacturing processes. POSITA will understand that the manufacturing process for strength members is a wholly separate and distinct manufacturing process than the manufacturing process for sheath of cables. Because of this, sheath material (as shown in Bickham) cannot simply be substituted for coating of strength members (as shown in Laws) without first overhauling the cable manufacturing process.
The examiner acknowledges the difference in design objective and manufacturing between the jacket and strength members, but does not find the argument to be persuasive.
While strength members provide tensile strength, both jacket and strength member coatings fundamentally serve protective functions including environment protections and moisture prevention. The examiner introduces Fitz (US 6137936 A), which explicitly teaches using hydrophobic materials for water protection in cable structures.
Applicant Argues: Additionally, using a coating material of Bickham other than those mentioned by Laws (such as EVA or EAA) for strength members embedded in the cable can render the cable disclosed in Laws unsatisfactory for its key objective of controlling the bond strength between the strength member and sheath as stated in claim 1 of Laws.
The examiner acknowledges the difference in manufacturing processes, but maintains that the fact that components may be manufactured separately or via different processes does not preclude obviousness of applying similar protective materials using either process. Even if manufacturing processes differ, selecting appropriate coating materials from known alternatives (Fitz’s hydrophobic fluoropolymers, for example) for application to cable components remains routine engineering within ordinary skill.
Applicant argues: “MPEP 2143.01.V notes that "if proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." In short, a reference cannot be modified if the modification renders inoperable the reference. Neither Laws nor Bickham discloses, teaches, or suggests any information regarding the bonding strength of the disclosed sheath materials over the strength members. Thereby, a person skilled in the art would have no motivation to use materials intended for manufacturing the sheath as a coating for strength members.”
The examiner disagrees,
Neither Laws nor Bickham teaches away from the proposed combination. Neither reference criticizes, discredits, or discourages the use of hydrophobic coatings on strength members. Selecting one material among many alternatives is not a teaching away from other alternatives.
Laws focuses on bonding strength for elongation control, Bickham teaches hydrophobic jacket properties. These objectives are not mutually exclusive – a coating may provide both adequate bonding and water resistances. PFA, ETFE, and FEP are known to provide adhesion in cable applications, and are inherently capable of doing so if they are disposed on the cable as claimed under the wisdom of a skilled artisan.
Applicant has not provided evidence that Bickham’s materials would actually compromise Laws’ bonding requirement to the extent that Laws’ elongation-control would fail. Speculation is insufficient.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103 is maintained as set forth in the previous office action. The combination of Laws and Bickham remains valid: it would be obvious to apply hydrophobic materials as taught in Bickham in a cable jacket which is structurally almost identical (as taught in Laws), only applying the coating to embedded strength member coatings to achieve a predictable hydrophobicity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn by the examiner. The applicants’ amendments have addressed the previously raised issues with indefiniteness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 10-12, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Fitz (US 6137936 A).
The examiner introduces Fitz as prior art which constitutes a further demonstration of obviousness through combination. Fitz is applied to claim 1, and dependent claims 2-20.
Regarding claim 1;
Laws et al. teaches an optical fiber cable (100) comprising;
One or more optical fibers (Figure 1, optical fibers 126),
A core (paragraph 21, “at least one opening enclosed by the jacket 105 may be referred to as a cable core”), wherein the core encloses the one or more optical fiber encapsulated by one or more layers (Figure 1); and a sheath (jacket 105) comprising one or more embedded strength members (115A and 115B).
Laws does not expressly disclose that the embedded members are coated with a hydrophobic material, though it discloses EVA which is a known hydrophobic material.
Fitz teaches an optical fiber cable (10) comprising:
a sheath encapsulating the core (coating layer 42); wherein
the sheath comprises one or more embedded strength members (strength member 44 in jacket 40).
A hydrophobic coating (“The release coating layer 42 is preferably formed from a composition consisting essentially of a release agent which is not chemically reactive with either of the jackets 30 and 40 and is thermally stable under normal processing conditions. In one embodiment, the release agent comprises a hydrophobic, fluoropolymer material with a solvent carrier, such as, for example, Miller Stephenson MS-143DF Release Agent. The hydrophobicity of the release agent provides that the surface tension of any water droplets on the coating layer 42 is not overcome by an attraction between the water droplets and the coating layer 42. Thus, the hydrophobic release agent decreases the likelihood that water droplets that contact the coating layer 42 would be drawn by capillary action into any small holes or gaps which exist between the jacket layers 30 and 40.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of Laws under the teachings of Fitz to apply a hydrophobic layer to the strength members of Laws. This may be accomplished using methods (spray, vapor deposition) known to the art and materials known to the art, and would predictably result in a cable where the hydrophobic properties and intralayer properties result in a minimization of capillary action leading to water in the wrong places and bonding which maintains the structural integrity of the cable.
Regarding claim 3;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein a core and a sheath (jacket 105), including embodiments where the sheath is formed from polyethylene (paragraph 32, “…may be formed from a wide variety of materials, such as… polyethylene, [and] medium density polyethylene (‘MDPE’)”). While the specification in the instant application mentions high density polyethylene (HDPE), the claim does not require any particular grade or density.
The claim further recites that “the sheath is capable of passing a water penetration test, wherein a 1-meter water-head is applied to a 3-meter cable sample kept for at least 24 hours.” Laws et al. discloses a sheath having the same or substantially the same structure and composition as that of claim 3, and passing the test is a limitation that is inherently characteristic to the sheath of Laws et al. In general, a feature is considered to be inherent when it is a necessary and inevitable result of the structure or process disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2114 (I). Passing the water penetration test necessarily follows from the structure and materials disclosed by Laws et al., given the material characteristics of polyethylene.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 6;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein
The one or more embedded strength members (115A and 115B) are coated with the hydrophobic material by extrusion, vapor spray, or passing through a liquid resin (paragraph 14, “…a coating may be extruded onto a strength member, [or] … a liquid coating may be dripped or sprayed onto a strength member”).
Regarding claim 7;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein with a core and a sheath (jacket 105), including embodiments where the sheath is formed from polyethylene (paragraph 32, “…may be formed from a wide variety of materials, such as… polyethylene, [and] medium density polyethylene (‘MDPE’)”. While the specification in the instant application mentions high density polyethylene (HDPE), the claim does not require any particular grade or density.
The claim further recites that a “pulling force between the one or more embedded strength members and the sheath is greater than 0.1 N/mm2”. Laws et al. discloses a sheath having the same or substantially the same structure and composition as that of claim 7. Having a pulling force between the strength members and a sheath greater than 0.1 N/mm-2 is an inevitable result given that the material properties of the strength members and sheath are substantially the same. Having a pulling force between the sheath and strength members that is greater than 0.1 N/mm2 is an inherent characteristic of the fiber of Laws et al., given the material characteristics of the sheath and strength members.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 10;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein
The one or more optical fibers (126) is encapsulated by at least one of a buffer tube (110E), loose tube, tight-buffered tube (paragraph 37), binder yarns binder film, binder tape, or water blocking tape.
Regarding claim 11;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein further comprising one or more buffer tubes (Figure 1, 110A, 110B, 110C, 110D), a first layer (105), a plurality of water swellable yarns (130), and a ripcord (paragraph 39: “…a ripcord may be disposed within a cable core”).
Regarding claim 12;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the one or more buffer tubes comprises the one or more optical fibers (Figure 1, buffer tubes 110A, 110B, 110C, 110D enclose optical fibers 126).
Regarding claim 17;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each of the one or more optical fibers comprises and inner core region and an outer cladding region (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 20;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sheath (jacket 105) may be composed of polyethylene, including embodiments using medium-density polyethylene (paragraph 32, “…may be formed from a wide variety of materials, such as… polyethylene, [and] medium density polyethylene (‘MDPE’)”. Polyethylene is a generic class of materials which encompasses low-density, medium-density, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which are known to the art and were commercially available at the time of filing.
Although Laws et al. does not specifically disclose HDPE, its disclosure of polyethylene, combined with the applicant’s selection of a known species (HDPE), renders the claimed sheath anticipated; a genus (polyethylene) is disclosed with a small number of known species, and one of those species is well within the skill of the art to select for its known properties. See In re Petering, 301 F.2d 626 (CCPA 1962).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Fitz (US 6137936 A), and further in view of Bickham et al. (US 11,448,842 B2).
Regarding claim 2;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws et al. does not specifically teach that the hydrophobic material is one of perfluoro alkoxy (PFA), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) and terapolymer (EFEP).
Bickham et al. teaches an optical fiber with a jacket (211) that may be composed of PFA, ETFE, and FEP (paragraph 173, and also Table V: Exemplary Cable Jacket Materials).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the hydrophobic coating of the strength member in the optical fiber cable of claim 1 with one of: PFA, FEP, or ETFE. This external coating may be applied to the strength member using a variety of suitable methods, including hot melt adhesives, dripping, and spraying (see Laws et al., paragraph 14). This addition would predictably prevent the boundary between the strength member and cable sheath from being permeable to water, and would help facilitate the strength of the bond between the strength member and the sheath of the cable.
Claim(s) 4, 13, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Fitz (US 6137936 A), and further in view of Ito et al. (JP 2017187659 A).
Regarding claim 4;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws et al. does not teach that the contact angle between water and the one or more coated embedded strength members is equal to or more than 100 degrees.
Ito et al. teach an optical fiber cable, wherein the contact angle between water and the one or strength members (14) is more than 90 degrees (“The water-repelling layer is formed to exhibit a contact angle that exceeds 90 degrees,” Abstract). Ito et al teaches that increasing the contact angle suppresses the capillary action in the gaps between solids, such as those of the strength members and the sheath, increasing the cable’s waterproof qualities.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 1 to be applied such that a contact angle between the water and the cable (which contains the coated, embedded strength members) to be greater than 100 degrees, based on the teachings of Ito et al. The motivation for increasing the angle is to decrease the extent to which water will permeate the inner layers of the fiber, and would predictably improve the waterproof properties of the optical fiber and its cores.
Regarding claim 13;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a core (paragraph 21) having a plurality of bundles of optical fibers (paragraph 35 discloses that the optical fibers may be bundled together within a plurality of buffer tubes 110), wherein the plurality of bundles of optical fibers comprises at least one ribbon (Figure 1, fiber ribbon 127).
Laws et al. does not teach that this ribbon is intermittently bonded.
Ito et al. teaches an optical fiber cable (Figure 1, cable 10) with an intermittently bonded optical fiber ribbon (Figure 2, intermittently bonded cable cores 2 and 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the optical fiber ribbon of Claim 1 to be intermittently bonded based on the teachings of Ito et al., using methods known to the art (i.e. adhesives, like UV curable adhesives as disclosed in Laws et al). This would have the predictable effect of increasing the flexibility of the ribbon while maintaining the organized cross-sectional structure of the fibers for high-density applications.
Regarding claim 14;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 13.
Laws et al does not teach that at least one intermittently bonded ribbon comprises the one or more optical fibers.
Ito et al. teaches a fiber optic cable (10) with an intermittently bonded optical fiber ribbon (Figure 2) comprising the one or more optical fibers (core wires 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 13 to include an intermittently bonded ribbon comprising the one or more optical fibers of claim 13. This could be accomplished by the teachings of Ito et al. via intermittent adhesive bonding of the optical fiber cables, using methods known to the art. This would have the predictable effect of increasing the flexibility of the ribbon while maintaining the organized cross-sectional structure of the fibers for high-density applications.
Regarding claim 18;
Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical fibers is a loose fiber (Figure 1, optical fiber 126) or a stacked flat optical fiber ribbon (Figure 1, optical fiber ribbon 127).
Laws does not disclose an intermittently bonded ribbon.
Ito et al. discloses an optical fiber cable, wherein one or more of the optical fibers is a corrugated, intermittently bonded ribbon (Figures 1 and 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Ito et al, to construct an optical fiber cable with optical fibers arranged as loose fibers, flat fiber ribbons, corrugated ribbons, or intermittently bonded ribbons. These embodiments could be constructed using methods and materials known to the art, and would have the predictable effect of altering the flexibility of the optical fibers as well as their strengths, such that their mechanical strength is maintained without worry for puncturing/bending, and efficient operation of the fiber cable is maintained with minimal loss.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Fitz (US 6137936 A), and further in view of Feng et al. (US 11,092,764 B2).
Regarding claim 5;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws et al. does not teach that the thickness of the hydrophobic material is in a range of 20 microns to 100 microns.
Feng et al. teaches a fiber optic cable (10), wherein the cable jacket (28) may be provided with a hard coating, such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which is hydrophobic (paragraph 23; additionally, see discussion of claim 2 above). Feng et al. disclose that this coating has a thickness of at most 0.05 mm, which corresponds to a value of 50 microns, which is between 20 and 100 microns.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 to include strength members with a hydrophobic coating that has a thickness between 20 and 100 microns, under the teachings of Feng et al. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (vapor spray, dipping), and would predictably result in a strength member which has a water-proof coating that is thick enough to maintain structural integrity without concern for puncturing, tearing, or micro bending.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Abernathy et al. (CN 105629411 A).
Regarding claim 8;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws does not teach the pulling method for pulling the optical fiber as claimed.
Abernathy et al. teaches an optical fiber cable wherein pulling is performed by fixing one end of 0.5m cable sample and pulling the optical fiber cable from one end (Figure 27).
Abernathy et al. does not explicitly disclose that the embedded strength member (reinforcement member 630) is pulled from another end, or that the cable sample is 1m long. However, Abernathy et al. does disclose that the sheath is cut to expose both the optical fiber and the reinforcement member.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teaching of Abernathy to modify the pulling procedure by fixing a longer, 1m cable sample and pulling the embedded strength member instead, as the test could just as easily be applied to the strength member with respect to the sheath instead of the optical fiber cable. This would predictably separate the sheath from the reinforcement/strength members, and would result in a test for assessing the bond/sheath adhesion strength between the strength member and the sheath, which helps quantify the effectiveness of the strength member.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Fitz (US 6137936 A), and further in view of Gashti (ed., Smart Coatings on Fibers and Textiles, MDPI, 2016 [NPL Reference]).
Regarding claim 9;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws et al. does not disclose that the hydrophobic material is obtained by surface modification of a hydrophilic material using one of: acetylation, metal oxide treatment, sol-gel process, modification with chlorosilanes, grafting of polymers, micro-emulsion, layer by layer deposition, plasma treatment and nanotechnology.
Gashti discloses that surface treatments like metal oxide treatment (page 169, TiO2), sol-gel process (page 169), modification with chlorosilanes (page 40), grafting of polymers (page 39), micro-emulsion (page 166), layer by layer deposition (page 49, page 168), plasma treatment (page 15, page 49), and nanotechnology (ix) are well-established in the art, and may be used impart hydrophobic properties onto a material.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Gashti to use one of the surface treatment methods disclosed in Gashti to dispose a hydrophobic material on a hydrophilic material, using the methods disclosed therein and those known to the art. These methods would predictably have the effect of rendering the strength member coating hydrophobic, to varying degrees based on the method used and with the added benefit of being “environmentally friendly” in some cases (Gashti, page 40).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Fitz (US 6137936 A), and further in view of Laws 2 (US 8,452,142 B1) and Ito et al. (JP 2017187659 A).
Regarding Claim 15;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) does not teach that the optical fiber cable further comprises a unitube, wherein the unitube comprises the one or more optical fiber ribbons.
Laws 2 (US 8,452,142 B1) teaches an optical fiber cable (Figure 1, cable 100), comprising a unitube (armor 124).
Laws 2 does not teach that the unitube comprises one or more optical fiber ribbons.
Ito et al. teaches an optical fiber cable, comprising one or more optical fiber ribbons (Figure 2A-2D depicts embodiments of intermittently bonded fiber ribbons).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 under the teachings of Laws 2 and Ito et al. by surrounding the optical fibers and fiber ribbons with a unitube (armor 124) that encloses the optical fibers. The optical fibers themselves may be arranged as fiber ribbons using methods known to the art, such as UV cured adhesion. This would predictably allow the optical fibers to be protected from external damage or influence via the unitube, while maintaining the added flexibility and efficiency of fiber ribbons.
Claim(s) 16 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws et al. (US 9,116,322 B1) in view of Fitz (US 6137936 A), and further in view of Laws 2.
Regarding claim 16;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws et al. does not teach that the diameter of each of the one or more optical fibers is in the range of 140 to 250 microns.
Laws 2 teaches an optical fiber cable (Figure 1, cable 100), wherein the diameter of each of the one or more optical fibers (optical fibers 130) is in the range of 140 microns to 250 microns (Table 1, the diameter of the optical fiber is 250 microns).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Laws 2, such that the optical fibers to have a cross-sectional diameter of 250 microns. This could be accomplished using routine design oversight and methods known to the art, and would require no more than routine engineering judgement to configure the fiber diameter to be in the claimed range. This would predictably alter the mechanical strength of the cable such that it has greater resistance to microbending/macrobending losses, especially in wet environments where deformation is likely.
Regarding claim 19;
Laws et al. in view of Fitz teaches the optical fiber cable as claimed in claim 1.
Laws does not teach a specific sheath thickness.
Laws 2 teaches an optical fiber cable (Figure 1, cable 100), comprising a sheath (outer jacket 120), wherein the sheath has a thickness of at least 0.5 mm (Table 3, Jacket thickness is 2.3mm, and 0.9mm over a steel rod).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Laws 2 to have a thickness of at least 0.5 mm. This could be accomplished using routine engineering judgment to dispose a sheath with a thickness of at least 0.5mm, and would predictably result in a fiber with sufficient mechanical strength to protect the inner layers and optical fibers such that they may operate with low loss and high signal integrity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, THOMAS A 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874