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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Consonni et al. (US 9213158 B2).
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) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood et al. (US 8649644 B2) in view of Ohno et al. (US 20200209505 A1) and Consonni et al. (US 9213158 B2).
Re claims 1-4: Greenwood et al. discloses an optical cable (100) comprising: an optical fiber (112); an outer sheath (130) that houses the optical fiber (112); and a tubular reinforcement sheet (120) disposed between the optical fiber (112) and the outer sheath (130), wherein in a cross section perpendicular to a length direction of the optical cable (100), an adhesive strength between the tubular reinforcement sheet (120) and the outer sheath (130) in a first zone (154) is stronger than an adhesive strength between the tubular reinforcement sheet (120) and the outer sheath (130) in a second zone (152) (col. 3, line 4 through col. 4, line 32).
Greenwood et al. fails to disclose the outer sheath (130) and the tubular reinforcement sheet (120) are adhered together without a rip cord disposed therebetween.
Ohno et al. teaches an optical cable (10A) comprising: an optical fiber (11); an outer sheath (30) that houses the optical fiber (11); and a tubular reinforcement sheet (20) disposed between the optical fiber (11) and the outer sheath (30), the outer sheath (30) and the tubular reinforcement sheet (20) are adhered together without a rip cord disposed therebetween (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have the outer sheath and the tubular reinforcement sheet of Greenwood et al. adhered together without a rip cord disposed therebetween as taught by Ohno et al. since placing a rip cord between the outer sheath and the tubular reinforcement sheet or on the inner side of the reinforcement sheet is a matter of rearrangement; and a rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Greenwood et al./Ohno et al. further teaches the percentage of the second zone is 50% or less (Fig. 2), but is silent with respect to a product of A and B is 500 or greater, where A is a percentage of the second zone with respect to an entire circumference of the tubular reinforcement sheet and B is a percentage of elongation at break of a resin constituting the outer sheath, or the adhesive strength of the second zone is 0.5 N/mm or less.
Consonni et al. discloses elongation at break of a resin constituting the outer sheath (3) is 500% or higher (col. 8, lines 28-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have the outer sheath of Greenwood et al./Ohno et al. made of a resin material having high elongate at break as taught by Consonni et al. to provide enhanced performance and/or to ease the manufacturing process (Consonni et al., col. 5, lines 54-60). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the size of the first and second zones and adhesive strength as claimed for the purpose of reducing damages to the optical cable when facilitating access to the optical fibers in the core. Such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Re claim 5: Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./Consonni et al. discloses the optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the second zone (152) is in a region including an outer end of the tubular reinforcement sheet (120) wrapped in a tubular form (Fig. 2).
Re claim 6: Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./ Consonni et al. discloses the optical cable according to claim 5, wherein the second zone (152) is from the outer end toward an overlapping part in which one edge of the tubular reinforcement sheet overlaps the other edge of the tubular reinforcement sheet (120) (Fig. 2).
Re claim 7: Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./ Consonni et al. discloses the optical cable according to claim 5, wherein the second zone (152) crosses over the outer end in a circumferential direction of the tubular reinforcement sheet (120) (Fig. 2).
Re claim 8: Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./ Consonni et al. discloses the optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the second zone (152) is in a non-overlapping part in which one edge of the tubular reinforcement sheet wrapped in a tubular form does not overlap the other edge of the tubular reinforcement sheet, and an outer end of the tubular reinforcement sheet does not coincide with an end of the second zone (152) (Fig. 2).
Re claim 9: Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./ Consonni et al. discloses the optical cable according to claim 1, wherein no member other than an adhesive is between the tubular reinforcement sheet (120) and the outer sheath (130) (Figs. 1-2).
Re claim 11: Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./ Consonni et al. discloses the optical cable according to claim 1, wherein a tension member (140) is embedded in the outer sheath (130) on a radially outer side of the first zone (154), but not on a radially outer side of the second zone (152) (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood et al. (US 8649644 B2) in view of Ohno et al. (US 20200209505 A1) and Consonni et al. (US 9213158 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parsons et al. (US 7254302 B2).
Re claim 10: Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./ Consonni et al. discloses the optical cable according to claim 1 and further teaches a tension member (140) is embedded in the outer sheath (130) (Fig. 2), but is silent with respect to a tension member is not embedded in the outer sheath.
However, having a tension member embedded or not embedded in the outer sheath is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Parsons et al., where a tension member (19a/142a) can be embedded in the outer sheath (20) (Fig. 5; col. 9, lines 32-33) or in the inner sheath (142) (Fig. 14; col. 11, lines 49-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have a tension member of Greenwood et al./Ohno et al./ Consonni et al. embedded in the inner sheath since such modification would have been an obvious engineering variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, to improve tensile strength of the optical cable and prevent the central optical fiber from being damaged under an external force. Furthermore, embedding a tension member in the outer sheath or inner sheath is merely a matter of rearrangement; and a rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaji et al. (US 11835778 B2) discloses different states of a reinforcing layer to suppress cracking.
JP 4782310 B2 discloses skin material has an elongation at break in the range of 50% to 300%.
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, MATHEW W SUCH can be reached at (571) 272-1570. 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