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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 with regard to claims as amended have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-16, applicant’s arguments against the previous rejection essentially boils down to whether Weimann teaches or suggests a cable structure that can house or support “at least 144 optical fibers”. The examiner notes that Weimann in fact teaches that an optical cable that comprises a plurality of ribbons, each of which further comprises a plurality of optical fibers, wherein “each such ribbon may have any number of such fibers” and “an optical fiber cable in accordance with the present disclosure may have a total of up to 144 fibers”. (Weimann, ¶[0016]) Therefore, while Weimann details and illustrates an exemplary embodiment of 24 optical fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded the cable can be upscaled to house and support a plurality of ribbons totaling 144 optical fibers with reasonable to complete confidence based on Weimann’s disclosure.
Regarding claims 18-20, applicant’s arguments against the previous rejection essentially boils down to whether Bradley further suggests an extruded anti-buckling elements that are more rigid than a first polymer jacket material. The examiner is in agreement with applicant’s position that Hamilton suggests using a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) jacket and Bradley further suggests an embedded, coextruded PVC flat sheet strength elements. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of independent claim 18 that the jacket and the strength elements cannot both be made of PVC, i.e., they must be of different materials. The independent claim 18 recites in part that “the outer cable jacket comprises a first polymer material and the extruded polymer anti-buckling elements comprise a second polymer material, wherein the second polymer material is more rigid than the first polymer material”. That is, the second polymer material needs not to be different from the first polymer material, it needs to be more rigid as required by claim 18. Returning to the Bradley reference, which suggests using either GRP rods or PVC flat sheets as longitudinal strength members to provide flexural rigidity to the cable to define a non-preferential plane for bending, it is further noted Bradley also suggests that the jacket can also be made of a PVC material (Bradley, ¶[0024]), i.e., both the jacket and the flat sheet are made of PVC and the PVC flat sheets, due to its shape and/or different rigidity, provides the PVC cable jacket with the flexural rigidity in Bradley’s invention. Finally, PVC is a material that exists in different forms. For example, rigid PVC tubes and/or fittings are commonly used in commercial or residential plumbing applications, and it would have been well within the knowledge and skill of an ordinary artisan to select a rigid PVC material to form the PVC flat sheets with in the flexible, bendable PVC cable jacket.
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, 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) 1-5, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 2020/0174209 by Weimann et al. in view of U.S. Patent 5,050,957 to Hamilton et al. and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2013/0188916 by Bradley et al., and further in view of WO 2019/010291 A1 patent publication by Blazer et al.
Regarding claim 1, Weimann teaches an optical fiber ribbon cable (Fig. 1) comprising: an outer cable jacket (102) comprising: an inner surface (facing inward) defining an interior cavity; an exterior surface defining an outermost surface of the cable (surface facing outward); and a maximum outer dimension of 4 mm to 6 mm (Weimann discloses a packing density for optical fibers 108 to be from 1.0-5.0 fiber/mm2 for two ribbons 104, 106 of exactly 12 fibers each. Weimann further states the packing density is defined as the number of fibers divided by the cable jacket outside diameter, ¶[0019], therefore the cable jacket’s outside diameter is ≥ 4.8 mm, or 24/5.0, and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter range of 4.8-6 mm, since the purpose of the invention is to achieve high packing density and the outside diameter is a result effective variable directly affecting the packing density); a plurality of optical fiber ribbons (14, 16) surrounded by the outer cable jacket, each of the optical fiber ribbons comprising a plurality of optical fibers coupled together via a ribbon body (as illustrated in Fig. 5), wherein the ribbon body is formed from a flexible material (matrix material 504 with sufficient flexibility, ¶[0036]) such that the each of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are reversibly movable from an unrolled position to a rolled position; a non-gel, non-liquid water blocking material (reinforcing yarns 112 coated with a super-absorbent polymer, ¶[0017]) located within the interior cavity; wherein a number of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is 2 to 16 (exactly 12 fibers 108, ¶[0016]); wherein a total number of optical fibers of all of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is at least 144 (up to 144 fibers, ¶[0016]) (2x12=24); and wherein the interior cavity is free from a gel material (no teaching of any gel materials) .
Weimann teaches the outer jacket (102), which may be made of a flame-retardant material to comply with standardized fire safety requirements for indoor cables, but does not specify the outer jacket to be “polymeric”. Hamilton also teaches an indoor optical fiber cable comprising an outer jacket (44) which preferably is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to provide the desired degree of flame retardance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select PVC as the material of choice for the outer jacket in Weimann’s invention, as suggested by Hamilton, with reasonable expectation of success, since they both are drawn to a common technical issue of flame retardant cable material.
Weimann teaches the high packing density optical fiber ribbon cable comprising the outer jacket but not anti-buckling elements (by way of polymer strength elements 32) bonded to and embedded within the jacket. Bradley also teaches a fiber optic cable (110, 210, 310, 410) comprising a jacket (112, 212, 312, 412), a plurality of strength elements (120, 122) embedded in the jacket, wherein the strength elements (120, 122) may be formed from a dielectric material, such as glass-reinforced plastic rods or flat sheets of polyvinyl chloride, and wherein such sheets or other shapes may be co-extruded with the jacket (412). See at least Figs. 1-4, ¶[0018]-[0020]. The strength elements provides rigidity and preferential bending planes, which limit the formation of spontaneous knows in a coil of the cable, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weimann’s invention by incorporating the strength elements embedded in the jacket and bonded by the coextrusion process of making, for the same reason and advantage.
Weimann further does not specify the polymeric outer jacket has a thickness of 0.5-0.9mm. Blazer also teaches a high fiber density ribbon cable comprising a jacket (12) surrounding optical fibers (18, and a water-blocking element (50) such as a tape or SAP powder, wherein strength members (32) are embedded in the cable jacket (12) and encapsulated in a suitable bonding material to enhance the bonding characteristics to the jacket (12), and a jacket thickness of 1-4 mm ¶[0034]. Since both Weimann and Blazer are drawn to ribbon optical cables having high fiber density, and Weimann uses a far smaller number of fiber ribbons, absent any criticality to the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentation and examiner the viability of smaller-diametered strength member and thinner wall in the range of 0.5-0.9mm for the cable jacket, in order to form a high fiber density cable without excess in size and wasted material.
Regarding claim 2, Weimann further teaches the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are not located within buffer tubes such that all of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons form a single group within the outer cable jacket (Fig. 1), wherein a number of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is at least 12 (each ribbon includes “exactly 12 optical fibers 108”).
Regarding claim 3, Weimann further teaches the maximum outer dimension is 5 mm to 6 mm (as stated in rejection to claim 1 above, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter range of 4.8-6 mm, since the purpose of the invention is to achieve high packing density and the outside diameter is a result effective variable directly affecting the packing density).
Regarding claim 4, Weimann a central region of the interior cavity is occupied by at least one of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons (occupied by fibers 18 of the ribbons as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Weimann further teaches the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are unbuffered such that all of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are not separated from each other within the outer cable jacket (the ribbons 104, 106 are disposed in the cable and directly in contact with each other as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Weimann teaches an optical cable comprising: an outer cable jacket (102) comprising: an inner surface (facing inward) defining an interior cavity; an exterior surface defining an outermost surface of the cable (surface facing outward); and a maximum outer dimension less than 6 mm (Weimann discloses a packing density for optical fibers 108 to be from 1.0-5.0 fiber/mm2 for two ribbons 104, 106 of exactly 12 fibers each. Weimann further states the packing density is defined as the number of fibers divided by the cable jacket outside diameter, ¶[0019], therefore the cable jacket’s outside diameter is ≥ 4.8 mm, or 24/5.0, and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter range of 4.8-6 mm, since the purpose of the invention is to achieve high packing density and the outside diameter is a result effective variable directly affecting the packing density); a plurality of optical fiber ribbons (14, 16) surrounded by the outer cable jacket, each of the optical fiber ribbons comprising a plurality of optical fibers coupled together via a ribbon body (Fig. 5), wherein the ribbon body is formed from a flexible material (matrix material 504 with sufficient flexibility, ¶[0036]) such that the each of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are reversibly movable from an unrolled position to a rolled position; and a non-gel, non-liquid water blocking material located within the interior cavity (reinforcing yarns 112 coated with a super-absorbent polymer, ¶[0017]); wherein a number of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is less than 17 (two as illustrated); wherein a total number of optical fibers of all of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is at least 144 (¶[0016]); and wherein a central region of the interior cavity is occupied by at least one of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons (two as illustrated).
Weimann teaches the outer jacket (102), which may be made of a flame-retardant material to comply with standardized fire safety requirements for indoor cables, but does not specify the outer jacket to be “polymeric”. Hamilton also teaches an indoor optical fiber cable comprising an outer jacket (44) which preferably is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to provide the desired degree of flame retardance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select PVC as the material of choice for the outer jacket in Weimann’s invention, as suggested by Hamilton, with reasonable expectation of success, since they both are drawn to a common technical issue of flame retardant cable material.
Weimann teaches the high packing density optical fiber ribbon cable comprising the outer jacket but not anti-buckling elements (by way of polymer strength elements 32) bonded to and embedded within the jacket. Bradley also teaches a fiber optic cable (110, 210, 310, 410) comprising a jacket (112, 212, 312, 412), a plurality of strength elements (120, 122) embedded in the jacket, wherein the strength elements (120, 122) may be formed from a dielectric material, such as glass-reinforced plastic rods or flat sheets of polyvinyl chloride, and wherein such sheets or other shapes may be co-extruded with the jacket (412). See at least Figs. 1-4, ¶[0018]-[0020]. The strength elements provides rigidity and preferential bending planes, which limit the formation of spontaneous knows in a coil of the cable, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weimann’s invention by incorporating the strength elements embedded in the jacket and bonded by the coextrusion process of making, for the same reason and advantage.
Weimann further does not specify the polymeric outer jacket has a thickness of 0.5-0.9mm. Blazer also teaches a high fiber density ribbon cable comprising a jacket (12) surrounding optical fibers (18, and a water-blocking element (50) such as a tape or SAP powder, wherein strength members (32) are embedded in the cable jacket (12) and encapsulated in a suitable bonding material to enhance the bonding characteristics to the jacket (12), and a jacket thickness of 1-4 mm ¶[0034]. Since both Weimann and Blazer are drawn to ribbon optical cables having high fiber density, and Weimann uses a far smaller number of fiber ribbons, absent any criticality to the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentation and examiner the viability of smaller-diametered strength member and thinner wall in the range of 0.5-0.9mm for the cable jacket, in order to form a high fiber density cable without excess in size and wasted material.
Regarding claim 13, Weimann further teaches the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are unbuffered such that all of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are not separated from each other within the outer cable jacket (the ribbons 104, 106 are disposed in the cable and directly in contact with each other as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Weimann further teaches the interior cavity does not include a central strength member (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Weimann further teaches a number of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is at least 12 (each ribbon includes “exactly 12 optical fibers 108”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimann, Hamilton, and Bradley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2006/0147165 by Um et al.
Regarding claim 6, Weimann teaches using a super-absorbent polymer coated on reinforcing yarns as the non-gel, non-liquid water blocking material but does not specify it to be a powder. Um also teaches an indoor optical fiber cable comprising a peripheral strength member/PSM (320) formed with strength yarns such as aramid yarn, glass yarn, wherein the PSM has water resistance, via super absorbent powder coated aramid yarn or glass yarn. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat the reinforcing yarns in Weimann’s invention with the super absorbent powder, as suggested by Um, with reasonable expectation of success, since they both are drawn to a common technical issue of protecting the cable from damage caused by water or moisture.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimann, Hamilton and Bradley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/010291 A1 patent publication by Blazer et al.
Regarding claim 8, Weimann teaches the high packing density optical fiber ribbon cable comprising the outer jacket but not anti-buckling element bonded to and embedded within the jacket. Bradley suggests using the anti-buckling/strength elements embedded in and bonded to the cable jacket, wherein the strength elements may be formed from glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) rods but does not provide information on modulus of elasticity difference between the strength elements and the jacket. Blazer also teaches a high fiber density ribbon cable comprising a jacket (12) surrounding optical fibers (18, and a water-blocking element (50) such as a tape or SAP powder, wherein strength members (32) are embedded in the cable jacket (12) and encapsulated in a suitable bonding material to enhance the bonding characteristics to the jacket (12), and wherein the strength members (32) are also rigid/semi-rigid GRP rods, and wherein the outer cable jacket comprises a first polymer material (¶[0036]) and the extruded polymer strength elements (GRP) comprise a second polymer material, wherein a modulus of elasticity of the second polymer material (EA of 660kN, ¶[0041]) is greater than a modulus of elasticity (e.g., 61,852N for MDPE) of the first polymer material, which is necessary to provide anti-buckling elements to the jacket against deformation under stress. See at least ¶[0036], [0038]-[0040]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bradley’s invention by selecting the polymer materials suitable for the purpose of this advantage, as suggested by Blazer.
Regarding claim 9, Blazer further suggests a total cross-sectional area of the extruded polymer anti-buckling elements is less than 3% of the total cross-sectional area located within the exterior surface of the polymeric outer cable jacket (Blazer discloses a cable outer diameter of 33 mm ¶[0036], a jacket thickness of 1-4 mm ¶[0035] and the strength member having a diameter of 1-3 mm ¶[0036]), for the reason of providing and balancing desired strength, protective qualities and flexibility.
Regarding claim 10, Blazer further suggests a fiber filing ratio of 42%, which enables a cable having high fiber density to still fit easily inside a standard 2” duct. (Blazer, ¶[0054])
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimann, Hamilton, and Bradley as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2006/0147165 by Um et al.
Regarding claim 16, Weimann teaches using a super-absorbent polymer coated on reinforcing yarns as the non-gel, non-liquid water blocking material but does not specify it to be a powder. Um also teaches an indoor optical fiber cable comprising a peripheral strength member/PSM (320) formed with strength yarns such as aramid yarn, glass yarn, wherein the PSM has water resistance, via super absorbent powder coated aramid yarn or glass yarn. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat the reinforcing yarns in Weimann’s invention with the super absorbent powder, as suggested by Um, with reasonable expectation of success, since they both are drawn to a common technical issue of protecting the cable from damage caused by water or moisture.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimann et al. in view of Hamilton et al. and further in view of Bradley et al.
Regarding claim 18, Weimann teaches an optical cable comprising an outer jacket (102) comprising: an inner surface (facing inward) defining an interior cavity; an exterior surface defining an outermost surface of the cable (surface facing outward); a plurality of optical fiber ribbons (14, 16) surrounded by the outer cable jacket, each of the optical fiber ribbons comprising a plurality of optical fibers coupled together via a ribbon body (Fig. 5), wherein the ribbon body is formed from a flexible material (matrix material 504 with sufficient flexibility, ¶[0036]) such that the each of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are reversibly movable from an unrolled position to a rolled position.
Weimann teaches the outer jacket (102), which may be made of a flame-retardant material to comply with standardized fire safety requirements for indoor cables, but does not specify the outer jacket to be “polymeric”. Hamilton also teaches an indoor optical fiber cable comprising an outer jacket (44) which preferably is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to provide the desired degree of flame retardance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select PVC as the material of choice for the outer jacket in Weimann’s invention, as suggested by Hamilton, with reasonable expectation of success, since they both are drawn to a common technical issue of flame retardant cable material.
Weimann teaches the high packing density optical fiber ribbon cable comprising the outer jacket but not anti-buckling elements (by way of polymer strength elements 32) bonded to and embedded within the jacket. Bradley also teaches a fiber optic cable (110, 210, 310, 410) comprising a jacket (112, 212, 312, 412), a plurality of strength elements (120, 122) embedded in the jacket, wherein the strength elements (120, 122) may be formed from a dielectric material, such as glass-reinforced plastic rods or flat sheets of polyvinyl chloride, and wherein such sheets or other shapes may be co-extruded with the jacket (412). See at least Figs. 1-4, ¶[0018]-[0020]. The strength elements provides rigidity and preferential bending planes, which limit the formation of spontaneous knows in a coil of the cable, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Weimann’s invention by incorporating the strength elements embedded in the jacket and bonded by the coextrusion process of making, for the same reason and advantage.
Regarding claim 19, Weimann further teaches the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are unbuffered such that all of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons are not separated from each other within the outer cable jacket (the ribbons 104, 106 are disposed in the cable and directly in contact with each other as illustrated in Fig. 1) and the interior cavity does not include a central strength member (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Weimann further teaches a number of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is 2 to 16 (two, Fig. 1) and a total number of optical fibers of all of the plurality of optical fiber ribbons is 16 to 256 (24 fibers 108, Fig. 1), wherein the interior cavity is free from a gel material (no reference of any gel material).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPub20130287349 discloses strength members 354 extruded into a jacket 312 to facilitate a preferential bend.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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 Hollweg can be reached on (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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874