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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on August 6, 2025 is acknowledged. As such, claims 9-20 are hereby withdrawn as being directed to non-elected invention(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 13, 2023 and November 27, 2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Five sheets for formal drawings were filed August 3, 2023 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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 claim 2, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 18, 2025