Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on April 29, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim 23 in the reply filed on April 29, 2026 is acknowledged. As such, claim 24 is hereby withdrawn as being directed to non-elected invention(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guenter et al. (US 2019/0361185 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Gaillard et al. (EP 1191375 A2 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 1, Guenter discloses a bundled drop assembly (150 in Fig. 11), comprising: a central member (152); a first layer of subunits (132) wound around the central member in a bundled configuration, the first layer of subunits comprising at least one subunit containing at least one first optical fiber (58) and the first layer of subunits comprising a first maximum cross-sectional dimension in the bundled configuration.
Still regarding claim 1, Guenter teaches the claimed invention except for in an unrestrained configuration, the first layer of subunits comprises a second maximum cross-sectional dimension that is less than twice the first maximum cross-sectional dimension. Gaillard discloses a fiber optic cable comprising a plurality of subunits in a bundled configured, wherein in an unrestrained configuration, the subunits comprise a second maximum cross-sectional dimension that is less than twice the first maximum cross-sectional dimension of the bundled configuration in paragraphs 0043, 0050 and 0063. Since both of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the subunits so as to have a second maximum cross-sectional dimension of the unrestrained configuration that is less than twice the first maximum cross-sectional dimension of the bundled configuration as disclosed by Gaillard in the device of Guenter for the purpose of preventing unraveling of flexible buffer tube cables.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Guenter discloses at least one further layer of subunits (134) wound around the first layer of subunits, the at least one further layer of subunits comprising at least one subunit containing at least one second optical fiber; wherein the at least one further layer of subunits comprises an outer layer of subunits that is an outermost layer of the bundled drop assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Guenter discloses the first layer of subunits and each of the at least one further layer of subunits is wound in a same rotational direction in paragraph 0044.
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination of Guenter and Gaillard teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a laylength being more than fifteen times a diameter of the pitch circle. However, as Guenter discloses the general conditions of a pitch circle diameter and a laylength in paragraphs 0039-0043, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed laylength in order to achieve a desired balance between flexibility and production speed, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, the proposed combination of Guenter and Gaillard teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the second maximum cross-sectional dimension. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed second maximum cross-sectional dimension being less than 1.5x the first maximum cross-sectional dimension in order to minimize unraveling, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, the proposed combination of Guenter and Gaillard teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a residual unwinding force of less than 1000 g. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed residual unwinding force in order to minimize unraveling, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Guenter discloses the central member (152) comprises at least one of a central strength member, an electrical cable, or an optical fiber cable in paragraph 0090.
Regarding claim 8, Guenter discloses the bundled drop assembly does not comprise a cable jacket or a binding wrap surrounding the first layer of subunits in Fig. 5, 13 and paragraph 0094.
Regarding claim 23, Guenter discloses a first layer of subunits (134) being an outermost layer of the bundled drop assembly. It is noted the outermost layer (134) of subunits being a “first” layer does not preclude any additional layers as inner layers, since base claim 1 merely requires “a first layer of subunits wound around the central member”, and as seen in Fig. 11, layer 134 is wound around central member 152.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guenter et al. (US 2019/0361185 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Gaillard et al. (EP 1191375 A2 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement), further in view of Viens et al. (WO 2018/006160 A1 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 21, the proposed combination of Guenter and Gaillard teaches the claimed invention except for the subunits annealed to relieve viscoelastic stress. Viens discloses a fiber optic cable comprising a plurality of subunits in a bundled configuration, the subunits annealed (page 31, line 28 to page 32, line 6) to obtain the bundled shape. Annealing the subunits would naturally relieve viscoelastic stress. Since all of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to anneal the subunits so as to relieve viscoelastic stress as disclosed by Viens in the device of the proposed combination of Guenter and Gaillard for the purpose of ensuring the retention of the shape of the bundle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed April 29, 2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, Applicant argues that Gaillard does not teach subunits “in an unrestrained configuration” because the buffer tubes are heated to promote adhesion without melting. Applicant equates the adhesion of the buffer tubes to each other as restraining. However, this interpretation of “unrestrained” is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s specification states “subunits 12 substantially retain their bundled [unrestrained] configuration without the use of binders, glues, or other retaining means.” Thus, Applicant has defined “unrestrained” as “without the use of binders, glues, or other retaining means.”
Gaillard’s subunits (buffer tubes) also retain their configuration without the use of binders, glues or other retaining means, since the buffer tubes themselves adhere to each other. In other words, because the buffer tubes by themselves retain their configuration, there is no need for any supplemental component, such as binders, glue or additional retaining means. In fact, Gaillard at paragraphs 0008-0009 explicitly states “the use of binders is undesirable” since “stress exerted by a binder on the buffer tubes is easily transmitted to the optical fibers.” Thus, the buffer tubes of Gaillard read on “unrestrained” as defined by Applicant’s disclosure and the prima facie rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights