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 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Tondi-Resta, Yamamoto and Sato do not teach the effective area and occupation ratio claimed because Tondi-Resta does not teach the effective area. The rejection does not rely on Tondi-Resta for this limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument that Yamamoto teaches a range of effective area of 125 to 155 instead of 110 to 150: 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).
Regarding the argument that Sato only teaches an occupation ratio of 38.5%: 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). Sato’s value lies in the claimed range of 25-60% for claim 2.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new matter includes the occupation ratio being 55 to 60%. The disclosure does not state this range and applicant has not pointed out where support for this amendment comes from.
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 and 7 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 25% or more and 55% or less (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).
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).
Regarding claim 7, 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.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
Contact Information
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 on 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874