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 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s rectification of claim 12’s informalities, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim remains objected as detailed below.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Remarks, page 6), 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).
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to the filling compound 80a of Stamnitz does not form a layer because the two layers of armor wires 60 and 70 are arranged directly adjacent/in contact with each other (Remarks, page 7, 2nd paragraph), the examiner disagrees. Stamnitz discloses “elastomeric filling compound 80a fills all interstices between adjacent wires and layers as required” (figs. 2-3A; col. 11, lines 1-3 and lines 61-64). Further, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a layer can have a discrete or continuous structure, for example, layer 70’ shown in fig. 3b (col. 12, lines 7-8). Accordingly, “layer” 80a has a discrete structure (spaced apart where the armor wires of the two layers 60, 70 are in contact; figs. 2-3A) and thus meets the limitation of “a protective sheath of polymer material radially arranged around the internal reinforcement” 60. Applicant further argues that Stamnitz’s multiple layers of reinforcement and protective sheath do not serve the same function, which is to protect the optical fiber, as the claimed additional reinforcement and the additional protective sheath (Remarks, middle page 7). However, the claim does not recite any functions. Even if the functions of the two additional layers are claimed, Stamnitz teaches that “jacket 80 is provided as needed to protect the wires from point loading or strength degradation due to corrosion” (col. 10, lines 67-68) and “the double-steel armor layers… create an essentially torque-free cable that insures low cable rotation” (col. 11, lines 16-35), which are in turn protecting the optical fiber cable. Alternatively, when a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01. Stamnitz teaches a cable that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention (as detailed in the rejection below), therefore the claimed property of “protecting the optical fiber” is presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not inherently possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 12, line 16: replace “the empty space” with -- an empty space -- for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homa et al. (US 2012/0125596 A1) in view of 김진한 (KR 101067698 B1, hereinafter Kim) and Stamnitz (US 4,952,012 A).
Regarding claim 12, Homa et al. teaches a cable (10; [0002], [0014]; FIG. 4) comprising:
a core comprising a plurality of optical fibers (20; [0017]);
an internal reinforcement (“metals strands” 14) radially arranged around the core (see FIG. 4), the internal reinforcement comprising a plurality of steel wires arranged in a ring ([0021] teaches that strands 14 may be made of steel, and a steel “strand” is understood as equivalent to a steel “wire”);
an intermediate sheath (“hollow central tube” 12) radially arranged between the core and the internal reinforcement (see FIG. 4); and
a protective sheath (either or both of “outer tubes” 16, 18; [0021]) radially arranged around the internal reinforcement (see FIG. 4),
Homa et al. further discloses a sensing optical fibers ([0013] teaches that optical fibers 20 may be configured as optical fiber sensors) arranged in a metal tube (fiber 20 in one of strands 14 as shown in FIG. 4, and strands 14 are made from metallic material [0016]), plurality of metal tubes 14 forming part of the internal reinforcement and being arranged in a ring with the steel wires of the internal reinforcement ([0017]; see FIG. 5).
Homa et al. fails to disclose at least two sensing optical fibers 20 tightly arranged against each other, in a tightly bound configuration in a first metal tube 14, at least two sensing optical fibers 20 loosely arranged with respect to each other, in a loosely bound configuration in a second metal tube 14, the empty space in the first metal tube in the tightly bound configuration being filled with a resin or gel, and the protective sheath (16, 18) is made of a polymer material.
However, having at least two optical fibers tightly arranged against each other, in a tightly bound configuration in a first metal tube, at least two sensing optical fibers loosely arranged with respect to each other, in a loosely bound configuration in a second metal tube, and empty space in the first metal tube in the tightly bound configuration being filled with a resin or gel are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kim. Kim teaches at least two optical fibers 222 tightly arranged against each other, in a tightly bound configuration in a first tube 220/226 (fig. 3, English Translation: p. 3, 3rd paragraph to last), at least two optical fibers 312 loosely arranged with respect to each other, in a loosely bound configuration in a second tube 310/316 (English Translation: p. 3, 6th paragraph), empty space in the first metal tube in the tightly bound configuration being filled with a gel (jelly - English Translation: p. 3, 3rd paragraph to last), and the protective sheath (260) is made of a polymer material (English Translation: p. 4, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical fibers arranged in both tight and loose configurations to create a hybrid composite structure that balances maximum strength with high impact/energy absorption, i.e., tight fibers provide rigid load-bearing support, while loose/open fibers enable ductility, vibration damping, and stress redistribution without catastrophic structural failure. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the protective sheath made of polymer to provide a lightweight, highly flexible, and durable cable, e.g., protecting the cable from both environmental hazards and impact damage. The selection of a known material (e.g., polymer/elastomer) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., as a protective sheath for a cable) has been held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Homa/Kim does not teach an additional reinforcement radially arranged around the protective sheath and an additional protective sheath radially arranged around the additional reinforcement.
Stamnitz teaches a cable (10”; FIG. 3A) comprising an internal reinforcement (“layer” 60) radially arranged around a core (20), the internal reinforcement comprising a plurality of steel wires arranged in a ring (Col. 11, line 17); a protective sheath of polymer material (“elastomeric filling compound” 80a; Col. 11, line 1) radially arranged around the internal reinforcement; an additional reinforcement (“layer” 70) radially arranged around the protective sheath (see FIG. 3A); and an additional protective sheath (“jacket” 80; Col. 11, line 66) radially arranged around the additional reinforcement. Stamnitz teaches that it is desirable to have two layers of reinforcement because they can be arranged contrahelically, which balances the torque on the cable, creating a cable with low cable rotation (Col. 11, lines 16-23). The additional protective sheath protects the additional reinforcement (Col. 10, lines 66-67).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Stamnitz, to include in the cable of Homa/Kim an additional reinforcement radially arranged around the protective sheath and an additional protective sheath radially arranged around the additional reinforcement for the purpose of torque-balancing the cable and protecting the additional reinforcement. Further, combining prior art elements (e.g., a cable and reinforcement layers for cables) according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., to torque-balance the cable) has been held to be obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 20-21, Homa/Kim/Stamnitz discloses the cable according to claim 12, wherein the steel wires (14) and the metal tube (14 with fiber 20 inside; FIG. 4) are of stainless steel ([0021]).
Claim(s) 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homa et al. in view of Kim and Stamnitz as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Evans (US 2005/0244116 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Homa/Kim/Stamnitz discloses the cable according to claim 12, wherein the intermediate sheath (12) comprises a metal sheath ([0021] teaches many examples of metals from which sheath 12 may be made).
Homa/Kim/Stamnitz does not explicitly teach that the metal sheath is configured to transmit electrical signals. However, metals such as those disclosed in paragraph [0021] of Homa are known to be electrical conductors, and Homa additionally teaches that the cable may be configured to conduct electrical signals ([0013]). It is well-known in the art that cables which include optical fibers may also include electrical conductors to transmit electrical signals; this is also taught by Evans (Abstract; [0002]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the additional teachings of Homa/Kim/Stamnitz, to configure the metal intermediate sheath to conduct electrical signals for the purpose of allowing the cable to transmit both electrical and optical signals.
Regarding claim 22, Homa/Kim/Stamnitz discloses the cable according to claim 12, but does not explicitly teach that the cable of claim 12 is used in the method as described in claim 22.
Evans teaches a method for measuring mechanical deformations undergone by a cable (15; [0036], [0043]; FIGs. 2, 6) comprising:
providing, by a laser source (“optical signal source” 18, called “pulsed light source” in FIG. 6), a laser pulse ([0043]: “a laser operating in pulse mode”);
injecting, by an interrogator (“detector” 19 which is an “OTDR instrument”; [0043]), the laser pulse into at least one sensing optical fiber (12; [0036]) of the cable;
detecting, by the interrogator, an optical signal representing the light intensity of the pulse backscattered in the at least one sensing optical fiber ([0043] discloses that the interrogator detects the intensity of Rayleigh scatting reflections in the sensing fiber);
determining, by the interrogator, a mechanical deformation undergone by the cable from the optical signal ([0043] discloses that the interrogator observes the reflected signals and “provides an alarm” if the signals indicate that damage, i.e., “mechanical deformation,” has occurred to the cable).
Homa/Kim/Stamnitz teaches the cable of claim 12 (see rejection re. claim 12 above), and Evans teaches the remaining steps of the method of claim 22. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a method for measuring mechanical deformations undergone by the cable according to claim 12 comprising all the claimed method steps, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 22. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the disclosure of Evans that the claimed method is known in the art as desired way to use cables. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., to detect mechanical deformation undergone by the cable) has been held to be obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Uyen-Chau N. Le whose telephone number is (571)272-2397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Kiesha R. Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights