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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks and Arguments”, filed 08 September 2025, (herein identified as “Remarks”) have been fully considered
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 4, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are persuasive (see Remarks Pg 4 at Section I). Therefore, the rejections of Claims of 4, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 1-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Japanese Publication 2016-80747 to Sato et al. (herein identified at “JP1”) are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP1 fails to describe, “at least one pair of ripcords of the plurality of ripcords are positioned on both sides of a strength member” as set forth in Claim 1 (see Remarks Pg 4 at first bullet point). The annotated figures of JP1 shown herein demonstrates how the pair of ripcords is disposed on both sides of a strength member.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s further arguments directed to different objectives and constructional differences (see Remarks Pgs 4-6), the rejection is based upon the claim language as currently pending. These arguments fail to point out a structural difference between the invention as claimed and the prior art.
Applicant further argues that the phrase “both sides” specifically refers to positions substantially diagonally opposite and in vicinity to the strength members (see Remarks Pg 6 at first bullet point “Insufficiency”). The term “both sides” is not defined as such in the specification or claims. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, such that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning (see MPEP § 2111). Here, the plain meaning of “both sides” in the context of Claim 1 simply refers to positions located to either side of a strength member. It would not be proper to impute limitations such that the positions required to be substantially diagonally opposite and in vicinity to the strength members. Therefore, as shown in the annotated figures of JP1 herein, the ripcords of JP1 are positioned on both sides of a strength member.
Regarding Applicant’s further arguments directed to inherency (see Remarks at Pgs 6-7), these are arguments are moot since JP1 is sufficient to anticipate the claimed subject matter as discussed herein.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of US Patent Application 2005/0036750 to Triplett et al. (herein identified as “US1”) are persuasive (see Remarks Pg 7 at Constructional Difference: “ US1 contains no disclosure explicit or implicit of any strength members embedded within the outer sheath of the cable”). Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of US1 has been withdrawn.
Please note that upon further consideration, new rejections have been included herein, see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP1.
Regarding Claim 1, JP1 describes an optical fiber cable (1, see Figs 1 and 4-6) comprising:
a core (20) comprising one or more optical fibers units (17);
a sheath (30) substantially surrounding the core;
one or more strength members (22) at least partially embedded in the sheath; and
a plurality of ripcords (21),
wherein at least one pair of ripcords of the plurality of ripcords are positioned on both sides of a strength member of the one or more strength members (see Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 2, JP1 describes one or more layers (18, 19) substantially surrounding the core.
Regarding Claim 3, JP1 describes the one or more optical fibers units selected from one of, loose fibers, flat ribbon, Intelligently Bonded Ribbon (IBR), fibers in micromodules, fibers in loose tubes, and ribbons in loose tubes (see Figs 1 and 4-6) and translation page 2 paragraphs 12-13).
Regarding Claim 4, JP1 describes each layer of the one or more layers is selected from one of, water blocking tape (WBT), water swellable yarns (WSY), strength yarns, dielectric armoring, metal armoring, and tape (see Fig 1 and translation page 2 paragraphs 12-14).
Regarding Claim 6, JP1 describes each strength member of the one or more strength members having a diameter in a range of 0.5 mm to 2mm (see translation page 4 paragraphs 4).
Regarding Claim 7, JP1 is silent as to the decitex (dTex) value of the ripcords. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 8, JP1 describes the sheath further comprising a plurality of cavities adapted to receive the plurality of ripcords (cavities must exist in the material of the sheath in order for the ripcords to have the described positioning shown in Figs 1 and 4-6).
Regarding Claim 9, JP1 describes the plurality of ripcords positioned in the plurality of cavities (see Figs 1 and 4-6).
Regarding Claim 10, JP1 describes the plurality of ripcords positioned loosely beneath the sheath (see Figs 1 and 4-6).
Regarding Claim 12, JP1 describes a one or more layers (18, 19), wherein the plurality of ripcords deforms an outer surface of the one or more layers (see Figs 1 and 4-6).
Regarding Claim 14, JP1 describes the plurality of ripcords positioned in between a distal layer of the one or more layers and the sheath (see Figs 1 and 4-6).
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication JP 2022-49246 to Sato et al. including the provided machine translation (herein identified as “JP2”).
Regarding Claim 1, JP2 describes an optical fiber cable (1, see Figs 1-5) comprising:
a core (20) comprising one or more optical fibers units (21);
a sheath (2) substantially surrounding the core;
one or more strength members (4) at least partially embedded in the sheath; and
a plurality of ripcords (3),
wherein at least one pair of ripcords of the plurality of ripcords are positioned on both sides of a strength member of the one or more strength members (see Figs 1-5).
Regarding Claim 2, JP2 describes one or more layers (22) substantially surrounding the core.
Regarding Claim 3, JP2 describes the one or more optical fibers units selected from one of, loose fibers, flat ribbon, Intelligently Bonded Ribbon (IBR), fibers in micromodules, fibers in loose tubes, and ribbons in loose tubes (see Figs 1-5 and translation page 2 paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding Claim 4, JP2 describes each layer of the one or more layers is selected from one of, water blocking tape (WBT), water swellable yarns (WSY), strength yarns, dielectric armoring, metal armoring, and tape (see translation page 2 paragraphs 5-6).
Regarding Claim 7, JP2 is silent as to the decitex (dTex) value of the ripcords. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 8, JP2 describes the sheath further comprising a plurality of cavities adapted to receive the plurality of ripcords (cavities must exist in the material of the sheath in order for the ripcords to have the described positioning shown in see Figs 1-5).
Regarding Claim 9, JP2 describes the plurality of ripcords positioned in the plurality of cavities (see Fig 1-5).
Regarding Claim 12, JP2 describes a one or more layers (22), wherein the plurality of ripcords deforms an outer surface of the one or more layers (at 23, see Figs 1 and 5).
Regarding Claim 13, JP2 describes the optical fiber cable comprising a plurality of deformations (23) formed in the one or more layers by the plurality of ripcords (see Figs 1 and 5).
Regarding Claim 14, JP2 describes the plurality of ripcords positioned in between a distal layer of the one or more layers and the sheath (see Figs 1-5).
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 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP1 as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, JP1 is silent as to the thickness of the sheath. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the sheath of JP1 having a thickness in a range of 0.5mm to 3mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, JP1 does not describe the distance between a pair of ripcords. JP1 describes that the strength members (22) have an outer diameter of about 0.4 mm to 0.7mm (see translation page 2 paragraph 4). Given this dimension, the ripcord pairs as shown in Fig 5 would appear to be on the order of several mm apart. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a distance between the ripcords of JP1 in a range of 1mm to 5mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2 as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, JP2 is silent as to the thickness of the sheath. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the sheath of JP2 having a thickness in a range of 0.5mm to 3mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 6, JP2 is silent as to the diameter of the strength members. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the strength members of JP2 having a diameter in a range of 0.5 mm to 2mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, JP2 does not describe the distance between a pair of ripcords. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a distance between the ripcords of JP2 in a range of 1mm to 5mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874