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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Tondi-Resta does not obviate an occupation ratio in the 55-60% range even though Tondi-Resta discloses a 50% occupation ratio and that the range can be greater or less (C6 L47-54): Applicant argues that there are infinite number of occupation ratios above 50%, but Tondi-Resta establishes a preferred 50% ratio. Given the preferred ratio is so close to the claimed ratio range, it does not require an infinite leap in values for a person of ordinary skill in the art to try 55% for example. Applicant further argues that Tondi-Resta is silent as to whether the ribbons are intermittent bonded type or not, but Tondi-Resta is not relied upon to teach this limitation. Regarding the arguments concerning Sato and the occupation ratio, Tondi-Resta is still solely relied upon for obviating this limitations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondi-Resta et al (US 5,509,097) and Yamamoto et al (US 2017/0031088 A1) and further in view of Sato et al (US 10,268,009 B2).
Tondi-Resta teaches:
Claim 2: An optical fiber cable (1, Fig. 1) in which an optical fiber ribbon (5) formed by parallelly arranging a plurality of optical fibers (part of 5) is packaged in an internal space (within 3), wherein
a core portion of each optical fiber is made of pure quartz (C6 L28-33) and,
the optical fiber ribbon (5) is an optical fiber ribbon in which the optical fibers (part of 5) are connected by continuously applying an adhesive resin between adjacent optical fibers (C5 L66 – C6 L5; C6 L20-41), and an occupation ratio of the optical fiber ribbon (5) to the internal space calculated from a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the internal space (within 3) to a cross-sectional area of the packaged optical fiber ribbon is 50% (C6 L42-54).
Claim 4: The optical fiber cable according to claim 2, wherein the optical fiber cable (1) is a slotless type optical fiber cable (1, not slots are shown, see Fig. 1) having a cable core (3, 4) formed by stranding a plurality of the optical fiber ribbons (5) (C5 L66 – C6 L5) and a cable sheath (9) provided around the cable core (3, 4).
Regarding the 55-60% occupation ratio: Tondi-Resta teaches a 50% occupation ratio but does not state a range of 55-60%, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try a 55% occupation ratio, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Tondi-Resta states occupation ratio “is about 0.5 but can be greater or less”. One of ordinary skill the art would identify 55% as being about 50% plus or minus a “can be greater or less” as stated by Tondi-Resta. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect 55% occupation ratio to succeed since Tondi-Resta teaches the room in the internal space and suggests a range that surrounds a value of about half already.
Tondi-Resta does not state an effective cross-sectional area of the core portion at a wavelength of 1550 nm is 110 µm2 or more and 150 µm2 or less.
Yamamoto teaches an optical fiber cable (10, Fig. 1) in which an optical fiber ribbon (20) is formed by parallelly arranging a plurality of fibers (part of 20) is package3d in an internal space (2), wherein an effective cross-sectional area of the core portion of each fiber at a wavelength of 1550 nm is 110 µm2 or more and 150 µm2 or less (abstract) and in the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Tondi-Resta and Yamamoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fiber cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibers of Tondi-Resta to include the fiber taught by Yamamoto.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce bending loss and micro-bending loss when the fibers are housed in the cable (Yamamoto, P0048).
Tondi-Resta and Yamamoto does not teach expressly
Claim 2: …the optical fiber ribbon is an intermittent connection type optical fiber ribbon in which the optical fibers are connected by intermittently applying an adhesive resin between adjacent optical fibers.
Claim 3: The optical fiber cable according to claim 2, wherein the optical fiber cable is a ribbon slot type optical fiber cable with a slot rod.
Sato teaches an optical fiber cable (1, Fig. 1) in which an optical fiber ribbon (10) formed by parallelly arranging a plurality of optical fibers (11) is packaged in an internal space (3), wherein the optical fiber ribbon (10) is an intermittent connection type optical fiber ribbon in which the optical fibers (11) are connected by intermittently applying an adhesive resin between adjacent optical fibers (11) (Fig. 2, C3 L64 – C4 L10) and wherein the optical fiber cable (1) is a ribbon slot type optical fiber cable (1) with a slot rod (4) and an occupation ratio of the optical fiber ribbon (10) to the internal space (3) calculated from a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the internal space (3) to a cross-sectional area of the packaged optical fiber ribbon (10) is 25% or more and 60% or less (C6 L12-31).
Tondi-Resta, Yamamoto and Sato are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fiber cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cable type and ribbon type of Tondi-Resta and Yamamoto to include an intermittent connection type ribbon and ribbon slot type cable as taught by Sato.
The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to take out the optical fiber ribbons from each slot groove, the distinguishability of the optical fiber ribbons is improved (Sato, C2 L17-23).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondi-Resta and Yamamoto in view of Sato as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bickham et al (US 7,272,289 B2).
Tondi-Resta and Yamamoto in view of Sato teach the optical fiber cable previously discussed.
Tondi-Resta further teaches each optical fiber is configured with the core portion, a clad portion formed around the core portion, a primary coating layer covering the clad portion, and a secondary coating layer covering the primary coating layer (C6 L28-33).
Tondi-Resta and Yamamoto in view of Sato do not teach expressly:
Claim 5: The optical fiber cable according to claim 2, wherein
a Young's modulus of a resin forming the primary coating layer is 1.0 MPa (0.7MPa for claim 6) or less and a Young's modulus of a resin forming the secondary coating layer is 900 MPa or more.
Bickham teaches an optical fiber (300, Fig. 8) comprising a core portion (100), a clad portion (200) formed around the core portion (100), a primary coating layer (P) covering the clad portion (200), and a secondary coating layer (S) covering the primary coating layer (P) (Fig. 8), and
a Young's modulus of a resin forming the primary coating layer (P) is 1.0 MPa (0.7MPa for claim 6) or less and a Young's modulus of a resin forming the secondary coating layer (S) is 900 MPa or more (C1 L50-62) and in the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Tondi-Resta, Yamamoto, Sato and Bickham are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fibers.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical fiber of Tondi-Resta and Yamamoto in view of Sato to use the fiber taught by Bickham.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve micro-bending performance of the fibers (C12 L18-30).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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 at 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights