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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 05/20/2026 have all been considered and made of record.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/20/2026 has been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 5-7 of the remarks received 06/01/2026) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection. The amended limitations of claim 1 and the limitations of claim 11 previously taught by Oikawa are taught by Pellen (US 8130101 B2) as explained in the 35 USC 103 section of the instant office action.
With regards to claims 3-5, applicant has argued that “…Nobuo's unit cables 11a-11c are part of power cable 12… and could not be steel wire, polymer wire, or braided rope, as they would no longer be able to function as power cables if modified as alleged…”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Steel is conductive and steel cables can and have been be used to conduct electricity in a functional capacity (Such as - but not limited to - HDD cables [https://www.performancewire.com/stainless-steel-hdd-wire/]). Similarly, intrinsically conducting polymers (ICPs) ([https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/IT07208]) can also be used to conduct electricity. Furthermore, whether or not the structures are braided ropes would not negate the cable’s ability to conduct electricity.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuo (JP 2002310808 A) in view of Pellen (US 8130101 B2).
With regards to claim 1, Nobuo discloses a fiber optic cable configured for downhole and harsh environments, comprising: a braided core (Nobuo/Fig3/Braided core 12) consisting of three helically-arranged elongated structures braided together (Fig3/Elongated structures 11a, 11b, and 11c), each helically-arranged structure in direct contact with all of the other helically-arranged elongated structures of the braided core (Fig3), the braided core defining a helical groove between each pair of adjacent helically-arranged elongated structures (Fig3/Helical grooves as indicated below), and one or more optical fibers (Fig3/Optical fiber 13&14) disposed along one or more of the helical grooves correspondinqly and in direct contact with the one or more of the helical grooves of the braided core (Fig3), and an outer layer disposed over an outer surface of the braided core (Nobuo/Fig3), wherein the diameters of the one or more optical fibers are selected so that the one or more optical fibers are entirely within and inwardly spaced from a circle defined by a largest diameter of the braided core (Fig3/Circle as indicated below [Right]).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
227
235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nobuo is silent regarding the outer layer being in direct contact with the braided core, but the practice of configuring a fiber optic cable such that an outer layer is in direct contact with a braided core exists in the art as exemplified by Pellen.
Nobuo and Pellen are considered to be analogous in the field of fiber optic cables. Nobuo discloses a fiber optic cable wherein an outer layer is disposed over an outer surface of a braided core. Pellen discloses a fiber optic cable wherein an outer layer disposed over an outer surface of a core such that the outer layer is in direct contact with the core (Pellen/Fig1d/Outer layer [As indicated below]).
PNG
media_image3.png
190
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fiber optic cable of Nobuo the outer layer is in direct contact with the braided core as suggested by Pellen since doing so would reduce the size and weight of the cable.
With regards to claim 2, Nobuo and Pellen together disclose the fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein the braided core is composed of a plurality of wires braided together (Nobuo/Fig3; Paragraph 1 “…power cable…”).
With regards to claim 4, Nobuo and Pellen together disclose the optical cable of claim 2, but is silent regarding whether or not the wires are made of polymer. However, it has been held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polymer as the material for the wires of the braided core of Nobuo since doing so would positively contribute to the durability of the optical cable.
With regards to claim 9, Nobuo discloses the fiber optic cable of claim 1, but is silent regarding the outer layer comprising a metal layer in direct contact with the braided core. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a metal as the material for the outer layer disclosed by Nobuo, since doing so would provide increased durable protection for the fiber optic cable.
With regards to claim 11, Nobuo and Pellen together disclose the fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein the outer layer has a cylindrical inner surface in direct contact with the braided core (Pellen/Fig 1d).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuo (JP 2002310808 A) and Pellen (US 8130101 B2) as applied to claim 1 and 2, in further view of Oikawa (US 20180274237 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Nobuo and Pellen together disclose the fiber optic cable of claim 2, but is silent regarding whether or not the wires are made of steel. However, the practice of selecting steel as the material for wires of a braided core exists in the art as exemplified by Oikawa.
Nobuo, Pellen, and Oikawa are considered to be analogous in the field of optical-fiber inclusive electrical cables. Nobuo discloses 3 wires braided together. Oikawa discloses steel as a material for wires that are braided together (Oikawa/Paragraph 44/Lines 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select steel as the material for the wires of the braided core of Nobuo and Pellen as suggested by Oikawa since doing so would positively contribute to the durability of the optical cable.
With regards to claim 8, Nobuo and Pellen together disclose the fiber optic cable of claim 1, but are silent regarding whether or not the outer layer comprises a flexible plastic layer in direct contact with the braided core. However, the practice of configuring the outer layer of a cable to comprise a flexible plastic layer exists in the art as exemplified by Oikawa.
Nobuo, Pellen, and Oikawa are considered to be analogous in the field of optical-fiber inclusive electrical cables. Nobuo and Pellen discloses an outer layer of an optical fiber cable in direct contact with a braided core. Oikawa discloses an outer layer of a cable as comprising a flexible plastic layer (Oikawa/Paragraph 75/Lines 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optical fiber cable of Nobuo such that the outer layer comprised a flexible plastic layer as suggested by Oikawa since doing so would positively impact the durability of the cable while allowing elastic motion.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuo (JP 2002310808 A) and Pellen (US 8130101 B2) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Sarchi (US 20120082422 A1).
With regards to claim 5, Nobuo and Pellen together disclose the fiber optic cable of claim 1, but is silent regarding whether or not the braided core is composed of a plurality of braided ropes braided together. However, the practice of configuring a braided core to comprise a plurality of braided ropes braided together exists in the art as exemplified by Sarchi.
Nobuo, Pellen, and Sarchi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical-fiber inclusive electrical cables. Nobuo discloses a braided core comprising a plurality of elongated structures. Sarchi discloses a braided core comprising a plurality of braided ropes braided together (Sarchi/Fig1/Braided ropes 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fiber optic cable of Nobuo such that the braided core is composed of a plurality of braided ropes braided together as suggested by Sarchi since doing so would facilitate superior stress distribution within the cable.
With regards to claim 10, Nobuo and Pellen together disclose the fiber optic cable of claim 1, but is silent regarding whether or not at least one of the one or more optical fibers comprises a fiber module having more than one optic core. However, the practice of configuring a one or more optical fibers within a fiber optic cable such that it comprises multiple cores exists in the art as exemplified by Sarchi. Nobuo, Pellen, and Sarchi are considered to be analogous in the field of fiber optic cables.
Nobuo discloses a fiber optic cable including one of the one or more optical fibers. Sarchi discloses one or more optical fibers within an optical cable as comprising a fiber module having more than one optic core (Sarchi/Fig1a/Fiber module 19 [Module]; Plurality of optic cores 24 [Optical fibers]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optic cable disclosed by Nobuo and Pellen such that the one or more optical fibers comprised multiple cores as suggested by Sarchi, since doing so would increase the amount of information that could be communicated within an individual fiber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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 A 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights