DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on January 28, 2026. Claims 1, and 3-21 are under consideration.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favalora et al. (US 5,480,203, herein “Favalora”) in view of Faulkner et al. (US 2019/0004273 A1, herein “Faulkner”)
Regarding claim 1, Favalora discloses in Figs. 1-5 a fiber optic cable, comprising:
an outer jacket (not labeled or at reference number “15”);
a plurality of optical fibers (“fiber optic bundle 15”, Col. 5, line 18) carried within the outer jacket (sub-units of ‘cables 16’ wherein the fibers are contained in the outer jacket; Fig. 3);
a pull grip (pulling member 14) at an end of the fiber optic cable (Fig. 3, plan view of the pulling tool with its tail end expanded for receiving connectorized fiber optic cables) through a pathway (the implied installation environment such as in ground pathway to and from a distribution hub or an interior duct of a building) causing a tensile load to be imposed on the fiber optic cable; and a load distribution member (is formed from tape 22 through braided mesh sleeve 12 and to heat welds 40) coupled to the pull grip (14 ) and the plurality of optical fibers, the load distribution member configured (tape secures the cable load to the load distribution member, sleeve 12 axially compresses the cable, and the heat welds 40 fastens sleeve 12 to the pulling member 14) to distribute the tensile load imposed on the fiber optic cable over the plurality of optical fibers such that the plurality of optical fibers collectively provides the tensile strength to support the tensile load on the fiber optic cable (Sleeve 12 “close interweaving of strands 30 provides a more uniform pressure on cable 16 and connectors 18 since sleeve 12 can conform more easily to the shape of the cable 15 and connectors 18” [Col. 4, lines 33-39]);
PNG
media_image1.png
333
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the load distribution member (22/12/40) includes a squeeze tube (mesh sleeve 12) having an internal passage, the plurality of optical fibers (cables 16) extending through the internal passage (sleeve 12 expands in size radially to receive the cable 16 with connectors 18 therein [Col. 3, lines 32-45]), and wherein the squeeze tube is configured to apply a squeeze pressure to the plurality of optical fibers (sleeve 12 is axially stretched to thereby radially compress sleeve 12 into gripping engagement with the cables 16 and connectors 18 to secure the cables 16 and connectors 18 within sleeve 12 [Col. 5, lines 4-7]).
However, Favalora does not explicitly teach the outer jacket being external to the internal passage of the squeeze tube.
Faulkner teaches a fiber optic cable assembly for pulling a furcated optical fiber cable through ductwork in Fig. 10. Main distribution cable 12 having outer cable jacket 22 (Para [0024]). The cable jacket 22 is stripped from the main distribution cable 12 revealing the fiber ribbons 26, which can be further divided into furcation legs (Para [0030]). The pulling ring 56 encircles the main distribution cable and surrounds the furcation legs 14 and furcation plug 16 (Para [0039]).
PNG
media_image2.png
142
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to recognize the optical fiber pulling assembly of Faulkner with the pulling ring to grip onto the cable at the stripped back outer jacket. Thus, allowing existing pulling attachments to assemble onto a multi-fiber cable, furcated or unfurcated, as existing pulling attachments are easily assembled and disassembled in the field without any special tools (Para [0039]). One would be motivated to employ the pulling ring such that any pulling assembly can be attached to the outer jacket of the cable easily without any special tools.
Claim 3. Favalora discloses the squeeze tube (mesh sleeve 12) is configured so that the squeeze pressure is variable. The weave or interlacing of the stands 30 is such that when the sleeve 12 is longitudinally or axially compressed the sleeve 12 decreases in length and increases or expands in size radially to receive the cable (Col. 3, lines 35-40). Once the cables 16 with connectors 18 are suitably received within mesh sleeve 12, the mesh sleeve 12 can be axially stretched which results in a reduction of its size radially into a gripping action the cables 16 (Col. 3, lines 41-45). Therefore, the gripping action or grip’s holding force is directly proportional to the amount of pull from the pulling member 14, so the harder one pulls, the tighter the mesh sleeve holds. By increasing or decreasing the pulling force, the squeeze pressure is varied proportionally.
Claim 4. Favalora discloses the squeeze tube (mesh sleeve 12) includes a self-constricting tubular mesh (Col. 3, lines 35-45). Sleeve 12 radially compresses when it is axially stretched and the radially compression is proportional the diameter of the cable. Therefore, the examiner considers the mesh sleeve 12 is self-constricting.
Claim 5. Favalora discloses at least a portion of the pull grip is formed by the load distribution member. The pull grip (14) is attached to the folded mesh sleeve portion (36) and secured by the heat welds (40).
Claim 15. Favalora discloses the fiber optic cable of claim 1 wherein the fiber optic cable lacks strength members extending along the length of the fiber optic cable. The figures do not show strength members. Furthermore, Favalora describes the optical cables as “the fragile cables 16 with fragile connectors 18 coupled thereto are inserted into the open tail end 26 of mesh sleeve 12” (Col. 4, lines 61-67)—thus, the examiner considers Favalora positively discloses the cable lacks strength members.
Claim 16. Favalora discloses a fiber optic cable (15) comprising:
an outer jacket (Fig. 3 shows cable 15 having a jacket but not labeled);
a plurality of optical fibers (16) carried within the outer jacket;
a pull grip (14) at an end of the fiber optic cable (15) for pulling the fiber optic cable through a pathway (the implied installation environment such as in ground pathway to and from a distribution hub or an interior duct of a building), the pulling of the fiber optic cable through the pathway causing a tensile load to be imposed on the fiber optic cable; and
a load distribution member (is formed from tape 22 through braided mesh sleeve 12 and to heat welds 40) coupled to the pull grip (14) and to the plurality of optical fibers, the load distribution member (22/12/40) configured to distribute the tensile load imposed on the fiber optic cable over the plurality of optical fibers such that the plurality of optical fibers collectively provides the tensile strength to support the tensile load on the fiber optic cable (Sleeve 12 “close interweaving of strands 30 provides a more uniform pressure on cable 16 and connectors 18 since sleeve 12 can conform more easily to the shape of the cable 15 and connectors 18” [Col. 4, lines 33-39]), wherein:
the load distribution member (22/12/40) includes a squeeze tube (sleeve 12) having an internal passage through which the plurality of optical fibers extend (Fig. 3),
the squeeze tube (12) is configured to apply a squeeze pressure to the plurality of optical fibers (sleeve 12 is axially stretched to thereby radially compress sleeve 12 into gripping engagement with the cables 16 and connectors 18 to secure the cables 16 and connectors 18 within sleeve 12 [Col. 5, lines 4-7]), and
the squeeze tube (12) is configured so that the squeeze pressure is a function of a tensile load imposed on the fiber optic cable (see the full assembly in Fig. 5).
However, Favalora does not teach having an internal passage through which the plurality of the optical fibers extend and in which the outer jacket does not extend.
Faulkner teaches a fiber optic cable assembly for pulling a furcated optical fiber cable through ductwork in Fig. 10. Main distribution cable 12 having outer cable jacket 22 (Para [0024]). The cable jacket 22 is stripped from the main distribution cable 12 revealing the fiber ribbons 26, which can be further divided into furcation legs (Para [0030]). The pulling ring 56 encircles the main distribution cable and surrounds the furcation legs 14 and furcation plug 16 (Para [0039]).
PNG
media_image2.png
142
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to recognize the optical fiber pulling assembly of Faulkner with the pulling ring to grip onto the cable at the stripped back outer jacket. Thus, allowing existing pulling attachments to assemble onto a multi-fiber cable, furcated or unfurcated, as existing pulling attachments are easily assembled and disassembled in the field without any special tools (Para [0039]). One would be motivated to employ the pulling ring such that any pulling assembly can be attached to the outer jacket of the cable easily without any special tools.
Claim 20. Favalora discloses the fiber optic cable of claim 16 wherein the fiber optic cable lacks strength members extending along the length of the fiber optic cable. The figures in Favalora do not show any strength members. Furthermore, Favalora describes the optical cables as “the fragile cables 16 with fragile connectors 18 coupled thereto are inserted into the open tail end 26 of mesh sleeve 12” (Col. 4, lines 61-67)—thus, the examiner considers Favalora positively discloses the cable lacks strength members.
Claims 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favalora in view of Faulkner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fidrych (US 4,453,291, herein “Fidrych”).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Favalora in view of Faulkner (herein “Favalora / Faulkner”) teaches the fiber optic cable of claim 1, but Favalora / Faulkner is silent to the pull grip comprises: a tubular body, a pulling plug, and a bushing, as recited in claim 6.
Fidrych teaches a grip for pulling fiber optic cable wherein the pull grip comprises a tubular body (tubular body 21) having a proximal end, and a distal end, and an internal passage (diameter of chamber 22);
a pulling plug (tube 26 and pulling eyelet 14) at the proximal end and the tubular body (21) for connection to a tension member (annular collar 70 and ferrule 56 secures the mesh sleeve 16 in place such that when a force is applied to the pulling eyelet 14, the pulling force transfers to the ferrule causing tension in the mesh sleeve 16) for pulling the fiber optic cable through the pathway; and
a bushing (end cap 65 in Fig. 3) at the distal end of the tubular body (21), the bushing permitting the plurality of optical fibers to pass in to the internal passage of the tubular body. The tubular body (21) including end cap (65) and end cap (52) forms the protective tube covering at least a portion of the load distribution member and connected to the outer jacket of the fiber optic cable.
PNG
media_image3.png
547
342
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 modify Favalora / Faulkner pull grip with the pull grip having a tubular body as taught by Fidrych by forming the pulling plug with the tubular body over the mesh sleeve and secure the mesh sleeve to the tubular body as shown. One motivation would be to protect the cables and connectors from crushing force during the pulling process (Fidrych: Col. 1, lines 31-51).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favalora / Faulkner in view of Fidrych (herein “Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nilsson (US 5,039,196, herein “Nilsson”).
Favalora / Faulkner /Fidrych teach the fiber optic cable comprises of the pull grip of claim 6. Favalora / Faulkner /Fidrych further teach the fiber optic cable further comprises a releasable connection band (Favalora: tape 22) connecting the bushing (Fidrych: end cap 65) of the pull grip. The releasable connection band (tape 22) configured to transfer the tensile load to the pull grip to the load distribution member by physical attachment to the load distribution member (22/12/40).
However, Favalora / Faulkner /Fidrych do not teach a force transfer band of the load distribution member.
Nilsson teaches in Figs. 2-3 a pulling eye assembly comprising of pull cap (28) attached to force transfer band (crimping sleeve 30). A number of crimps are placed on the cable crimping sleeve (30) in order to engage the cable (force transference of the pull force from the pull cap (28) to the cable, Col. 4, lines 10-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pull grip of Favalora / Faulkner /Fidrych with the force transfer band (crimping sleeve) of Nilsson by fitting the band over a segment of the grip to strengthen the force transference. Motivation would be to evenly distribute the force transfer bands over the length of the pull grip to transfer the pull force evenly, thus avoiding excessive pull stress at any particular length of the cable which may cause tension and damage to the optical fibers.
Claims 8, 10-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favalora / Faulkner /Fidrych as applied to claim Nilsson above (herein “Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych / Nilsson”), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 8,630,523 B2, herein “Smith”).
Regarding claim 8, Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych / Nilsson teach the fiber optic cable comprising pull grip of claim 7. However, Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych / Nilsson do not teach the releasable connection band includes a rip cord for severing the connection between the pull grip and the load distribution member, and wherein the pull grip is slidingly removable from the end of the fiber optic cable upon severance of the connection band.
Smith teaches an optical cable pulling grip wherein the pulling eye (at 108 in Fig. 21A) end is secured to the grip assembly (100) with a releasable connection band (shrink tube114). The releasable connection band (shrink tube 114) includes a rip cord (118) for severing the connection between the pull grip and the load distribution member (pulling grip assembly 100).
PNG
media_image4.png
191
629
media_image4.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 modify the pull grip of Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych / Nilsson releasable connection band (tape 22) with the releasable connection band assembly (shrink tube 114 and rip cord 118) of Smith. Both the releasable connection bands (tape on the invention of Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych / Nilsson and shrink tube - rip cord combination of Smith) serve the same purpose - for easy release of the load distribution member, therefore, they are interchangeable. One motivation for using a shrink tube and rip cord is to avoid sticky tape residue remaining on the pull grip bushing.
Regarding claims 10-11, and 17-18, Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych / Nilsson teach fiber optic cable of claim 1 and claim 16, respectively, but Favalora / Faulkner / Fidrych / Nilsson are silent to the load distribution member engages with the plurality of optical fibers over a contact surface area is between 7,500 mm2 and 15,0002.
Smith teaches the ability for the fiber optic cable to withstand a certain pulling load may be required. The pulling load requirement may be up to one hundred pounds or one hundred and fifty pounds. The plurality of optical fibers are disposed in fiber sub-units. Each fiber sub-unit is comprised of an outer tube. Any number of optical fiber sub-units and optical fibers disposed therein may be provided (Col. 5, lines 23-52 and Col. 9, lines 23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pulling load, whether the load is expressed in weight or the contact surface areas of the cable and the load distribution member, for scalability of the pull grip ranging pulling cable within a building interior or pulling a large communication cable along highways or rail lines. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claims 12-13, Favalora/Fidrych/Nilsson teach fiber optic cable of claim 1, but Favalora/Fidrych/Nilsson are silent to the load distribution member engages with the plurality of optical fibers over a contact surface area having a length along the plurality of optical fibers, and wherein the ratio of the length of contact surface area and an outer diameter of the plurality of optical fibers is between 10 and 14.
Smith teaches the ability for the fiber optic cable to withstand a certain pulling load may be required. The pulling load requirement may be up to one hundred pounds or one hundred and fifty pounds. The plurality of optical fibers are disposed in fiber sub-units. Each fiber sub-unit is comprised of an outer tube. Any number of optical fiber sub-units and optical fibers disposed therein may be provided (Col. 5, lines 23-52 and Col. 9, lines 23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pulling load, whether the load is expressed in weight or ratio of the length of contact surface area and an outer diameter of the plurality of optical fibers with the load distribution member, for scalability of the pull grip ranging pulling cable within a building interior or pulling a large communication cable along highways or rail lines. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Favalora/Fidrych/Nilsson and in view of Smith teach fiber optic cable of claim 18, but Favalora/Fidrych/Nilsson are silent to the load distribution member engages with the plurality of optical fibers over a contact surface area having a length along the plurality of optical fibers, and wherein the ratio of the length of contact surface area and an outer diameter of the plurality of optical fibers is between 10 and 14.
Smith teaches the ability for the fiber optic cable to withstand a certain pulling load may be required. The pulling load requirement may be up to one hundred pounds or one hundred and fifty pounds. The plurality of optical fibers are disposed in fiber sub-units. Each fiber sub-unit is comprised of an outer tube. Any number of optical fiber sub-units and optical fibers disposed therein may be provided (Col. 5, lines 23-52 and Col. 9, lines 23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pulling load, whether the load is expressed in weight or ratio of the length of contact surface area and an outer diameter of the plurality of optical fibers with the load distribution member, for scalability of the pull grip ranging pulling cable within a building interior or pulling a large communication cable along highways or rail lines. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claims 14, Favalora / Fidrych / Nilsson teach fiber optic cable of claim 1, but Favalora / Fidrych / Nilsson are silent to the number of optical fibers in the plurality of optical fibers exceeds 1,500 optical fibers.
Smith teaches the ability for the fiber optic cable to withstand a certain pulling load may be required. The pulling load requirement may be up to one hundred pounds or one hundred and fifty pounds. The plurality of optical fibers are disposed in fiber sub-units. Each fiber sub-unit is comprised of an outer tube. Any number of optical fiber sub-units and optical fibers disposed therein may be provided (Col. 5, lines 23-52 and Col. 9, lines 23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pulling load, expressed in number of optical fibers, for scalability of the pull grip ranging pulling cable within a building interior or pulling a large communication cable along highways or rail lines. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favalora in view of Fidrych.
Regarding new claim 21, Favalora discloses a fiber optic cable (15), comprising:
an outer jacket (Fig. 3 shows cable 15 having a jacket but not labeled);
a plurality of optical fibers (16) carried within the outer jacket;
a pull grip (14) at an end of the fiber optic cable (15) for pulling the fiber optic cable through a pathway (the implied installation environment such as in ground pathway to and from a distribution hub or an interior duct of a building), the pulling of the fiber optic cable through the pathway causing a tensile load to be imposed on the fiber optic cable;
a load distribution member (is formed from tape 22 through braided mesh sleeve 12 and to heat welds 40) coupled to the pull grip (14) and to the plurality of optical fibers, the load distribution member (22/12/40) configured to distribute the tensile load imposed on the fiber optic cable over the plurality of optical fibers such that the plurality of optical fibers collectively provides the tensile strength to support the tensile load on the fiber optic cable (Sleeve 12 “close interweaving of strands 30 provides a more uniform pressure on cable 16 and connectors 18 since sleeve 12 can conform more easily to the shape of the cable 15 and connectors 18” [Col. 4, lines 33-39]).
However, Favalora does not disclose a protective tube adjacent the outer jacket and covering a substantial portion of a length of the load distribution member.
Fidrych teaches a grip for pulling fiber optic cable wherein the pull grip comprises a sheath body (21), a pulling plug (26), and a bushing (end cap 65 in Fig. 3). The bushing permitting the plurality of optical fibers to pass in the internal passage of the tubular body. The sheath body (21) including end cap (65) and end cap (52) forms the protective tube covering at least a portion of a length of the load distribution member (from collar 61 to circumferential shoulder 28, Col. 5, line 64 – Col. 6, line 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to recognize the sheath body 21 of Fidrych is provided to relieve force components on the load bearing of the nose piece (applicant’s pull grip) because the sheath is free to rotate about its longitudinal axis as it is being pulled (Abstract). One would be motivated to provide a protective tube to the pull grip assembly is to protect the connector therein and the gripping mechanisms extended from the pull grip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly added Claim 21 is rejected over Favalora in view of Fidrych.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights