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 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Tondi-Resta, Yamamoto and Sato do not disclose transmission loss of a 1550nm signal in the cable is 0.185 dB/km or less: The transmission loss of a cable a result achieved as a function of the cable structure, not a structural limitation that can be used to distinguish from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);< In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Further, Yamamoto teaches that transmission loss of a 1550nm signal in the cable is 0.19 dB/km (P0008). The rejection has been updated in view of this teaching.
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 or a transmission loss of a 1550nm signal being 0.185 dB/km or less.
The transmission loss of a signal in the cable is a functional result of the cable structure, not a structural limitation that can be used to distinguish the cable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);< In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
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 packaged 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 wherein an transmission loss of signal light with a wavelength of 1550nm for the cable is 0.19 dB/km (P0008) 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 and to achieve the transmission loss taught by Tamamoto.
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
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