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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8, 10, 13-14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 4: “wherein volume” should instead state “wherein a volume”.
Claim 4, line 4: “into conical receptacle” should instead state “into a conical receptacle”
Claim 8, line 8: “temperate” should instead state “temperature”
Claim 10, line 6: delete the extra “a” at the end of the line
Claim 13, line 4: “wherein volume” should instead state “wherein a volume”.
Claim 14, line 2: “into conical receptacle” should instead state “into a conical receptacle”
Claim 18, line 6: “temperate” should instead state “temperature”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 15-16 be found allowable, claims 5-6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 does not make it clear if “annealing a furcation tube” refers to a second furcation tube different from the one introduced in claim 1, if the furcation tube of claim 1 is annealed again, or something else. The examiner is interpreting lines 2-3 as having the following amendments:
deleting line 2, and
replacing line 3 with “wherein annealing the furcation tube comprises:”
Claim 10 does not make it clear if “juxtaposed to” is supposed to define a specific arrangement or vicinity. The examiner is interpreting “juxtaposed to” as equivalent to “being placed anywhere within the system near to” the identified subject.
Claim 14, line 3 further attempts to define how the adapter is structured to receive the furcation tube, but in so doing identifies insertion of the furcation tube into “conical receptacle of the adapter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 17-19, the claims are directed to components separate from the adapter. Based on claim 11, only an adapter capable of “receiving a furcation tube” and “fit to a vacuum line” limits the structure of the claimed adapter. No other structure has been claimed in claim 11 as being part of the system. Claims 12-14 and 17-19 will only be treated inasmuch as they affect the structure of the claimed adapter. Claims 12-13 do not further limit the structure of the adapter of claim 11. Claim 14 further identifies that the adapter has a conical receptacle but the other limitations do not further limit the structure of adapter of claim 11. Claims 17-19 do not further limit the structure of adaptor of claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edmundson in US Patent 5,125,060 (hereinafter "Edmundson"), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Edmundson.
Regarding claim 11, Edmundson discloses each and every structural element of a system comprising:
an adapter (branch module 20 is interpreted as an adapter); and
the adapter (20) structured to:
receive a furcation tube (20 is capable of receiving a furcation tube since 20 receives monotube 56 which is interpreted as a furcation tube),
fit to a vacuum line (20 necessarily must fit to a vacuum line in order to pull a communication cable through it; see Col. 6 lines 61-65),
apply a vacuum to the furcation tube (20 is capable of applying a vacuum to stub sheath 56; see Col. 6 lines 51-53) from the vacuum line (see Col. 6 lines 61-65), and
receive one or more communication cables through the furcation tube while the vacuum is applied (20 is capable of receiving optical fibers which are interpreted as communication cables, while the vacuum is applied; see Col. 6 lines 61-65).
Edmundson is silent as to if the interpreted furcation tube is annealed. The claimed phrase “wherein the furcation tube is annealed” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation (not only is the furcation tube annealed, the adapter is structured to receive the annealed furcation tube, which is also a product-by-process by limitation). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (for example, a specific property imparted to the adapter). See MPEP 2113.
The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).Thus, even though Edmundson is silent to the annealing of the furcation tube, it appears that the adapter product in Edmundson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are adapters that are capable of receiving furcation tubes regardless of if the furcation tubes are annealed or not.
Regarding claim 12, Edmundson discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above,
wherein a cable of the one or more communication cables comprises an optical fiber (optical fiber 74; see also “optical fibers” in Col. 6 lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 13, Edmundson discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above. Edmundson is silent to the system of claim 11:
wherein the adapter is structured to:
apply the vacuum on demand using a vacuum reservoir tank connected to a vacuum pump (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of applying the vacuum on demand using a vacuum reservoir tank connected to a vacuum pump),
wherein a volume of the tank maintains a vacuum pressure to provide the vacuum with an airflow for a defined period of time (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of applying the vacuum using a vacuum reservoir tank connected to a vacuum pump wherein the volume of the tank maintains a vacuum pressure to provide the vacuum with an airflow for a defined period of time, as is a necessarily present feature of applying the vacuum),
wherein the vacuum is less than or equal to about 0.4 pounds per square inch absolute (PSIA) (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of applying the vacuum using a vacuum reservoir tank connected to a vacuum pump wherein the vacuum is less than or equal to about 0.4 pounds per square inch absolute) , and
wherein the vacuum is applied with the airflow of about 7 cubic feet per minute (CFM) (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of applying the vacuum using a vacuum reservoir tank connected to a vacuum pump wherein the vacuum is applied with the airflow of about 7 cubic feet per minute).
Edmundson is silent as to if the adapter is structured to apply the vacuum with the claimed limitations. The claimed phrases “the adapter is structured to apply the vacuum on demand using a vacuum reservoir tank connected to a vacuum pump”, “wherein volume of the tank maintains a vacuum pressure to provide the vacuum with an airflow for a defined period of time”, “wherein the vacuum is less than or equal to about 0.4 pounds per square inch absolute (PSIA)”, and “wherein the vacuum is applied with the airflow of about 7 cubic feet per minute (CFM)”, are being treated as product-by-process limitations since all limitations regarding the specifics of how the vacuum is applied (the claimed vacuum components, vacuum properties, etc.) are treated inasmuch as how they affect the claimed adapter, since product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (for example, a specific property imparted to the adapter by application of a vacuum with the claimed specifics). See MPEP 2113..
The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).Thus, even though Edmundson is silent to the specifics of the vacuum applied, it appears that the adapter product in Edmundson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are adapters that are capable of applying the vacuum using a vacuum reservoir tank connected to a vacuum pump wherein the vacuum is applied with the airflow of about 7 cubic feet per minute.
Regarding claim 14, Edmundson discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above. Applicant has further claimed the system of claim 11:
wherein the vacuum line is a semirigid tube (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of fitting to a vacuum line wherein the vacuum line is a semirigid tube), and
wherein the furcation tube is inserted into a conical receptacle (channels 34 are interpreted as a conical receptacle; see Col. 8 lines 28-31; see Fig. 2-3) of the adapter (20) with an outer diameter of the furcation tube wedged into the conical receptacle (34) to seal the furcation tube to the adapter (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of receiving a furcation tube wherein the furcation tube is inserted into a conical receptacle of the adapter with an outer diameter of the furcation tube wedged into the conical receptacle to seal the furcation tube to the adapter).
Edmundson is silent as to if the adapter is structured to apply the vacuum with the claimed limitations. The claimed phrases “wherein the vacuum line is a semirigid tube” and “wherein the furcation tube is inserted into a conical receptacle of the adapter with an outer diameter of the furcation tube wedged into the conical receptacle to seal the furcation tube to the adapter” are treated inasmuch as how they affect the claimed adapter, since product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (for example, a specific property imparted to the adapter by application of a vacuum with the claimed specifics). See MPEP 2113..
The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).Thus, even though Edmundson is silent to the rigidity of the vacuum line and the sealing function of a furcation tube, it appears that the adapter product in Edmundson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are adapters that are capable of fitting to a semirigid vacuum line and capable of receiving a furcation tube that can be inserted into a conical receptacle of the adapter with an outer diameter of the furcation tube wedged into the conical receptacle to seal the furcation tube to the adapter.
Regarding claim 17, Edmundson discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above. Applicant has further claimed the system of claim 11:
wherein the one or more communication cables comprises an optical fiber with a length of the optical fiber that is drawn into the furcation tube (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of receiving one or more communication cables comprising an optical fiber with a length of the optical fiber that is drawn into the furcation tube), and
wherein the length of the optical fiber of the one or more communication cables is greater than a length of the furcation tube (the adapter of Edmundson is capable of receiving one or more communication cables comprising an optical fiber with a length greater than a length of the furcation tube).
Edmundson is silent as to if the adapter is structured to receive one or more communication cables with the claimed limitations. The claimed phrases “wherein the one or more communication cables comprises an optical fiber with a length of the optical fiber that is drawn into the furcation tube” and “wherein the length of the optical fiber of the one or more communication cables is greater than a length of the furcation tube” are treated inasmuch as how they affect the claimed adapter, since product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (for example, a specific property imparted to the adapter by receiving an optical fiber with the claimed specifics). See MPEP 2113.
The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).Thus, even though Edmundson is silent to the length of the optical fiber drawn into a furcation tube in relation to a length of the furcation tube, it appears that the adapter product in Edmundson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are adapters that are capable of drawing an optical fiber into a furcation tube and capable of receiving an optical fiber wherein a length of the optical fiber of the one or more communication cables is greater than a length of the furcation tube.
Regarding claim 18, Edmundson discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above. Applicant has further claimed the system of claim 11:
wherein the furcation tube is annealed by:
heating the furcation tube to a hold temperature over a heating period,
holding the hold temperature over a holding period, and
cooling the furcation tube to a room temperature over a cooling period,
wherein the hold temperature is greater than about 500 degrees Celsius,
wherein the heating period is about ten minutes,
wherein the holding period is about twenty minutes,
wherein the cooling period is about twelve minutes, and
wherein the room temperature in the range of about 20 to 25 degrees Celsius.
The adapter of Edmundson is considered to be capable of receiving a furcation tube, wherein the furcation tube is annealed as claimed above.
Edmundson is silent as to if the adapter is structured to receive a furcation tube annealed with the claimed limitations. The claimed phrases describing the annealing process of the furcation tube are treated inasmuch as how they affect the claimed adapter, since product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (for example, a specific property imparted to the adapter by receiving a furcation tube that is annealed with the claimed specifics). See MPEP 2113..
The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).Thus, even though Edmundson is silent to the annealing of the furcation tube, it appears that the adapter product in Edmundson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are adapters that are capable of receiving furcation tubes, regardless of if the furcation tubes are annealed via a specific process or not at all.
Regarding claim 19, Edmundson discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above. Applicant has further claimed the system of claim 11:
wherein the furcation tube (56) comprises an inner diameter forming a clearance between the inner diameter and diameters of the one or more communication cables,
wherein the clearance is greater than about 0.1 millimeters,
wherein the inner diameter of the furcation tube is about 0.6 millimeters, and
wherein the one or more communication cables comprise two optical fibers each with a diameter of 0.25 millimeters.
The adapter of Edmundson is considered to be capable of receiving a furcation tube, wherein the furcation tube comprises an inner diameter forming a clearance between the inner diameter and diameters of the one or more communication cables,
wherein the clearance is greater than about 0.1 millimeters,
wherein the inner diameter of the furcation tube is about 0.6 millimeters, and
wherein the one or more communication cables comprise two optical fibers each with a diameter of 0.25 millimeters.
Edmundson is silent as to if the adapter is structured to receive a furcation tube and a communication cable with the claimed limitations. The claimed phrases describing the specifics of the clearance formed in the furcation tube are treated inasmuch as how they affect the claimed adapter, since product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (for example, a specific property imparted to the adapter by receiving a furcation tube that forms a clearance with the claimed specifics). See MPEP 2113.
The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).Thus, even though Edmundson is silent to the clearance of the furcation tube, it appears that the adapter product in Edmundson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are adapters that are capable of receiving a furcation tube wherein the furcation tube comprises an inner diameter forming a clearance between the inner diameter and diameters of the one or more communication cables,
wherein the clearance is greater than about 0.1 millimeters,
wherein the inner diameter of the furcation tube is about 0.6 millimeters, and
wherein the one or more communication cables comprise two optical fibers each with a diameter of 0.25 millimeters.
Regarding claim 20, Edmundson discloses each and every structural element of a system comprising:
an adapter (branch module 20 is interpreted as an adapter) comprising a conical receptacle (channels 34 are interpreted as a conical receptacle; see Col. 8 lines 28-31); and
the adapter structured to:
receive a furcation tube (20 receives monotube 56 which is interpreted as a furcation tube),
fit to a vacuum line (necessarily must fit to a vacuum line in order to pull a communication through it; see Col. 6 lines 61-65),
apply a vacuum to the furcation tube (56, also known as a stub sheath; see Col. 6 lines 51-53) from the vacuum line (see Col. 6 lines 61-65), and
receive one or more communication cables through the furcation tube while the vacuum is applied (optical fibers, such as 74, being sucked through the stub sheath by the vacuum are interpreted as communication cables; see Col. 6 lines 61-65).
Edmundson is silent as to if the interpreted furcation tube is annealed. The claimed phrase “wherein the furcation tube is annealed” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation (not only is the furcation tube annealed, the adapter is structured to receive the annealed furcation tube, which is also a product-by-process by limitation). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference (for example, a specific property imparted to the adapter). See MPEP 2113.
The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and that patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form. Further, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).Thus, even though Edmundson is silent to the annealing of the furcation tube, it appears that the adapter product in Edmundson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are adapters that are capable of receiving furcation tubes regardless of if the furcation tubes are annealed or not.
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) 1-2, 6-10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmundson in US Patent 5,125,060 (hereinafter "Edmundson") in view of Carr in WO 9610202 A1 (hereinafter "Carr").
Regarding claim 1, Edmundson discloses a method comprising:
inserting the furcation tube (monotube 56 is interpreted as the furcation tube) into an adapter (branch module 20 is interpreted as an adapter) fitted to a vacuum line (necessary for the vacuum to suck optical fibers into the stub sheaths such as the monotubes;
applying a vacuum to the furcation tube (56, also known as a stub sheath; see Col. 6 lines 51-53); and
moving one or more communication cables (optical fiber 74 is interpreted as a communication cable) through the furcation tube (monotube 56, also known as a stub sheath; see Col. 6 lines 51-53) while the vacuum is applied (see Col. 6 lines 61-65).
Edmundson does not disclose annealing a furcation tube.
Carr teaches annealing a furcation tube (the metal tube enclosing the optical fiber element is interpreted as the furcation tube; see page 4, lines 16-23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the annealed the furcation tube of Edmundson as taught by Carr for the purpose of including a fortified furcation tube thereby achieving increased longevity of the complete device at the end of the process. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to perform the step before inserting the communication cables to prevent damaging or otherwise unintentionally affecting the communication cable during an annealing process.
Regarding claim 2, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of 1 as discussed above, wherein a cable of the one or more communication cables comprises an optical fiber (optical fiber 74).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 (and the system of claim 11) as discussed above, further comprising:
applying the vacuum (vacuums necessarily apply vacuum; see Col. 6 lines 61-65),
Edmundson/Carr fail to teach specific values:
wherein the vacuum applies a force of about 0.2 ounces to an optical fiber of the one or more communication cables.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vacuum apply a force of about 0.2 ounces to an optical fiber of the one or more communication cables for the purpose of creating a vacuum strong enough to move a communication cable through a furcation tube without damaging an optical fiber thereby achieving a faster method of fully threading an intact communication cable through the furcation tube, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 7, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
moving the one or more communication cables through the furcation tube,
wherein the one or more communication cables comprises an optical fiber with a length of the optical fiber that is drawn into the furcation tube, and
wherein the length of the optical fiber of the one or more communication cables is greater than a length of the furcation tube (see Col. 6 lines 62; note that pulling the fibers through the sheath necessarily makes the fiber longer than the interpreted furcation tube in that region);
stopping the airflow through the furcation tube from the vacuum with a shut-off valve;
drawing the optical fiber into the furcation tube (see Col. 5 lines 10-14), but fails to teach:
trimming the length of the optical fiber of the one or more communication cables after drawing.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have trimmed the length of the optical fiber of the one or more communication cables after drawing in the method of Edmundson/Carr for the purpose of removing excess fiber without attempting to pull or push it back in the opposite direction thereby achieving a simple method of obtaining a desired length of fiber, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
wherein annealing the furcation tube comprises:
heating the furcation tube to a hold temperature over a heating period (necessary step of annealing),
holding the hold temperature over a holding period (necessary step of annealing), and
cooling the furcation tube to a room temperature over a cooling period (necessary step of annealing), but fails to teach:
wherein the hold temperature is greater than about 500 degrees Celsius,
wherein the heating period is about ten minutes,
wherein the holding period is about twenty minutes, and
wherein the cooling period is about twelve minutes.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hold temperature greater than about 500 degrees Celsius for the purpose of allowing the microstructure to correct itself thereby achieving internal stress relief, and to have the heating period of about ten minutes, a holding process of about twenty minutes, and a cooling period of about twelve minutes for the purpose of providing sufficient time for the furcation tube to reach the ideal temperature, time for restructuring to occur, and time to cool without damaging the annealed furcation tube thereby achieving internal stress relief of the furcation tube. Further, it would have been obvious to have the hold temperature, heating period, and cooling period as claimed since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Edmundson/Carr further fails to disclose wherein the room temperature in the range of about 20 to 25 degrees Celsius.
The examiner takes Official Notice that room temperature is commonly accepted as being in the range of about 20 to 25 degrees Celsius.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the furcation tube cool to the room temperature for the purpose of allowing the microstructure to solidify to a temperature more accommodating for work performed by humans thereby achieving an easier handling process for the technician once the furcation tube has been annealed.
Regarding claim 9, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
moving the one or more communication cables through the furcation tube (optical fibers are moved through the stub sheath),
wherein the furcation tube comprises an inner diameter forming a clearance between the inner diameter and diameters of the one or more communication cables (necessarily present since the optical fiber fits within the monotube and will form such a clearance between their diameters),
wherein the one or more communication cables comprise two optical fibers (see Col. 1 line 38), but fails to teach:
wherein the two optical fibers each have a diameter of 0.25 millimeters.
The examiner takes Official Notice that 0.25 millimeter (or better recognized as 250 micrometer) optical fibers are well known in the art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.25 millimeter optical fibers in the communication cable of Edmundson/Carr for the purpose of creating communication cables useful in short-range high-speed application thereby achieving a more desirable device for building interconnectivity and other similar applications.
Edmundson/Carr further fails to disclose:
wherein the clearance is greater than about 0.1 millimeters, and
wherein the inner diameter of the furcation tube is about 0.6 millimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clearance be greater than about 0.1 millimeters and the inner diameter of the furcation tube be about 0.6 millimeters for the purpose of providing sufficient room for the optical fibers to expand, contract, or shift within thereby achieving a device capable of withstanding temperature fluctuations, physical stress, and other environmental factors, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
inserting the furcation tube (56) into an adapter (20; necessary to form a vacuum),
wherein the adapter (20) comprise a conical receptacle (channels 34 are interpreted as a conical receptacle; see Col. 8 lines 28-31) juxtaposed to a cylindrical portion (the portion of 20 not split into two channels is interpreted as the cylindrical portion), juxtaposed to (“juxtaposed to” is interpreted as “being placed anywhere within the system near to”) an open cavity (the central cavity of 20 is interpreted as the open cavity), and a plurality of threads (screw holes 30 are interpreted as having a plurality of threads),
wherein the conical receptacle comprises a proximal end (the end opposite where the vacuum is used) with a proximal diameter greater than an outer diameter of the furcation tube (the diameter of the conical receptacle must necessarily be greater in order to insert the monotube 56 into the channels 34) and comprises a distal end (the end where the vacuum is used) with a distal diameter greater than the one or more communication cables (furcation tube is necessarily larger than the communication cable to allow insertion), and
wherein the open cavity comprises a conical expansion (see central cavity of 20 in Fig. 3), a cylindrical section (the left side of the cavity of 20 is a normal cylinder and is interpreted as a cylindrical section), and a substantially cylindrical section (the right side of the cavity of 20 is interpreted as a substantially cylindrical section), but fails to teach:
wherein the conical receptacle comprises a distal diameter less than the outer diameter of the furcation tube.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distal diameter less than the outer diameter of the furcation tube in the method using the device of Edmundson/Carr for the purpose of preventing the furcation to be sucked into the vacuum and thus only allowing the optical fiber to be drawn in the direction of the vacuum thereby achieving increased technician efficiency, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmundson in US Patent 5,125,060 (hereinafter "Edmundson") in view of Carr in WO 9610202 A1 (hereinafter "Carr") and in further view of Steigleder in US Patent 979,899 (hereinafter "Steigleder").
Regarding claim 3, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach all of the specifics of the vacuum.
Steigleder teaches a method of using a vacuum to move a communication cable through a pipe (or tube; see Col. 1 lines 42-46), further comprising:
applying the vacuum on demand using a vacuum reservoir tank (storage tank 1 is interpreted as a vacuum reservoir tank) connected to a vacuum pump (see Fig. 2 and Col.1 lines 27-28, note lines 42-46 describe the system as a vacuum),
wherein a volume of the vacuum reservoir tank maintains a vacuum pressure to provide the vacuum with an airflow for a defined period of time (necessary function of a vacuum).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vacuum components of Steigleder in the device used in the method of Edmundson/Carr for the purpose of having a system capable of creating a vacuum in a tube thereby achieving an easier, less-damaging method of threading a cable or fiber through a tube.
Edmundson/Carr/Steigleder fails to teach specific values:
wherein the vacuum is less than or equal to about 0.4 pounds per square inch absolute (PSIA), and
wherein the vacuum is applied with the airflow of about 7 cubic feet per minute (CFM).
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vacuum be less than or equal to about 0.4 pounds per square inch absolute for the purpose of creating a vacuum strong enough to move a communication cable through a furcation tube thereby achieving a faster method of fully threading the cable through the tube, and to have the vacuum be applied with the airflow of about 7 cubic feet per minute for the purpose of creating a vacuum strong enough to quickly move a communication cable through a furcation tube thereby achieving reduced manufacturing times, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 4, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
inserting the furcation tube (monotube 56) into an adapter (branch module 20) fitted to a vacuum line (necessarily must fit to a vacuum line in order to pull a communication cable through it; see Col. 6 lines 61-65), and
wherein the furcation tube (56) is inserted into a conical receptacle (channels 34 are interpreted as a conical receptacle; see Col. 8 lines 28-31) of the adapter (20) with an outer diameter of the furcation tube wedged into the conical receptacle to seal the furcation tube to the adapter (necessarily present in order to create a vacuum seal).
Edmundson/Carr fail to teach:
wherein the vacuum line is a semirigid tube.
Steigleder teaches a method of using a vacuum to move a communication cable through a pipe (or tube; see Col. 1 lines 42-46), further comprising:
wherein the vacuum line is a semirigid tube (tapered nozzle 15 is formed of a slightly yielding material which is interpreted as a semirigid material; see Col. 2 lines 71-72).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the semirigid tube of Steigleder in the method of Edmundson/Carr for the purpose of providing a seal between the vacuum line and the furcation tube thereby achieving a significant change of pressure that can be used to move anything loose within the furcation tube.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmundson in US Patent 5,125,060 (hereinafter "Edmundson") in view of Carr in WO 9610202 A1 (hereinafter "Carr") and in further view of Steigleder in US Patent 979,899 (hereinafter "Steigleder") and in still further view of Randecker in EP 2022606 B1 (hereinafter "Randecker").
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Edmundson/Carr discloses the method of claim 1 (and the system of claim 11) as discussed above, but fails to teach:
applying the vacuum (vacuums necessarily apply vacuum; see Col. 6 lines 61-65), but fails to teach
wherein the vacuum is applied on-demand responsive to a shut-off valve,
Steigleder teaches
wherein the vacuum is applied on-demand responsive to a shut-off valve (valve 5 is interpreted as an on-demand responsive shut-off valve since it can be used to control the pressure changes).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vacuum components of Steigleder in the device used in the method of Edmundson/Carr for the purpose of having a system capable of creating a vacuum in a tube thereby achieving an easier, less-damaging method of threading a cable or fiber through a tube.
Edmundson/Carr/Steigleder fails to disclose wherein the shut-off valve is a foot operated valve.
Randecker teaches a foot-operated valve for vacuums (foot switch 15 is interpreted as a foot-operated valve; see Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the foot-operated valve of Randecker as the shutoff valve in the system of Edmundson/Carr/Steigleder for the purpose of keeping the technician’s hands free to better control the manufacturing process and to help prevent ergonomic injuries thereby achieving a more technician-friendly process. Further, the examiner considers foot-operated valves as a commonly known alternative of the various shut-off valves known in the art, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been more than able to implement such an alternative into the system of Edmundson/Carr/Steigleder.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 20220322899 discloses a conduit mouse and other vacuum-related information.
EP 2450730 A1 discloses annealed protection conduits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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 at (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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874