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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 28-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/06/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-27 in the reply filed on 5/06/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) in view of Shimizu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0210615).
As to claim 1, Petisce discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a strength member, including:
a core 11 formed of a composite material, the core having a first glass transition temperature or melting temperature (col. 5 lines 21-26),
an encapsulation layer 31 disposed around the core, and
an optical fiber assembly 21 disposed in the core, the optical fiber assembly including a fiber core and a fiber encapsulation layer (col. 4 lines 22-25) disposed around the core, the fiber encapsulation layer having a second glass transition temperature or melting temperature,
a conductor layer 17 disposed around the strength member.
However, Petisce does not disclose that the fiber encapsulation layer having a second glass transition temperature or melting temperature that is greater than the first glass transition temperature or melting temperature, or processing temperature of the strength member.
Shimizu discloses an optical fiber assembly including a fiber core 11 and a fiber encapsulation layer 12 disposed around the core, the fiber encapsulation layer having a second glass transition temperature or melting temperature (¶0048).
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 fiber assembly of Petisce have a second glass transition temperature or melting temperature that is greater than the first glass transition temperature or melting temperature, or processing temperature of the strength member as similarly taught by Shimizu in order to provide a fiber optic assembly having favorable flexibility and improved heat resistance (¶0031).
As to claim 2, Petisce discloses that the first glass transition temperature or melting temperature, or processing temperature of the strength member is in a range between about 60 degrees Celsius and about 350 degrees Celsius (col. 5 lines 21-26).
As to claim 3, Petisce does not disclose that the second glass transition temperature or melting temperature is in a range between about 80 degrees Celsius and about 450 degrees Celsius.
Shimizu discloses that the second glass transition temperature or melting temperature is in a range between about 80 degrees Celsius and about 450 degrees Celsius (¶0048).
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 fiber assembly of Petisce have a second glass transition temperature or melting temperature be in a range between about 80 degrees Celsius and about 450 degrees Celsius as similarly taught by Shimizu in order to provide a fiber optic assembly having favorable flexibility and improved heat resistance (¶0031).
As to claim 5, Petisce discloses that the optical fiber assembly is disposed proximate to a central axis of the core (fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Petisce discloses that the optical fiber assembly is disposed proximate to a radially outer edge of the core (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) and Shimizu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0210615) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0259246).
As to claim 4, Petisce does not disclose that the core has a first color and the fiber encapsulation layer has a second color different from the first color.
Miller discloses an optical fiber cable having a primary layer with a first color and a second layer with a second color (see abstract).
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 core of Petisce have a first color and the fiber encapsulation layer of Petisce have a second color different from the first color as similarly taught by Miller in order to easily identify layers.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) and Shimizu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0210615) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dannoux et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0033811).
As to claim 7, Petisce discloses an assembly, comprising:the apparatus of claim 1; and a coupler (col. 9 lines 4-14).
However, Petisce does not disclose a coupler coupled to an axial end of the apparatus, the coupler defining an aperture through a wall of the coupler, a portion of the optical assembly being routed through the aperture.
Dannoux discloses a coupler (figs. 2, 4) coupled to an axial end of the apparatus, the coupler defining an aperture through a wall of the coupler, a portion of the optical assembly being routed through the aperture.
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 assembly of Petisce have a coupler coupled to an axial end of the apparatus, the coupler defining an aperture through a wall of the coupler, a portion of the optical assembly being routed through the aperture as similarly taught by Dannoux in order to terminate the cable to a device.
Claim(s) 8-10, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) in view of San Roman Alerigi (Patent No. US 11,604,323).
As to claim 8, Petisce discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a strength member (figs. 1-2), including:
a core (figs. 1-2) formed of a composite material,
an encapsulation layer 31 disposed around the core, and
an optical fiber assembly 11 (fig. 2) disposed in the core, the optical fiber assembly including a fiber core 21 and a fiber encapsulation layer 13 disposed around the core, the fiber core including a central core and a cladding (col. 4 lines 22-25) disposed around the central core; and
a conductor layer 16 disposed around the strength member.
However, Petisce does not disclose that the cladding having a thickness of in a range of about 80 µm and to about 1,000 µm;
San Roman Alerigi discloses a cladding having a thickness of in a range of about 80 µm and to about 1,000 µm (see claim 8).
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 cladding of Petisce have a thickness be in a range of about 80 µm and to about 1,000 µm as similarly taught by San Roman Alerigi since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the thickness of a in order to adjust flexibility and insulating properties) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 9, Petisce does not disclose that the cladding has a thickness in a range of about 200 µm to about 1,000 µm.
San Roman Alerigi discloses a cladding having a thickness of in a range of about 200 µm and to about 1,000 µm (see claim 8).
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 cladding of Petisce have a thickness in a range of about 200 µm to about 1,000 µm as similarly taught by San Roman Alerigi since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the thickness of a in order to adjust flexibility and insulating properties) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 10, Petisce does not disclose that the central core has diameter in a range of about 2 µm to about 10.5 µm.
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 central core have a diameter in a range of about 2 µm to about 10.5 µm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 16, Petisce discloses that the fiber encapsulation layer further comprises: an inner moisture exclusion layer 14 disposed on the fiber core, the inner moisture exclusion layer configured to inhibit moisture ingress into the fiber core.
As to claim 17, Petisce discloses an outer moisture exclusion layer 17 disposed around the optical fiber assembly, the outer moisture exclusion layer configured to inhibit moisture ingress into the optical fiber assembly (Col. 3 lines 60-63).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) and San Roman Alerigi (Patent No. US 11,604,323) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mukasa (Pub. No. US 2020/0400882).
As to claim 11, Petisce does not disclose that the central core includes a germanium doped silica and the cladding includes an undoped silica.
Mukasa discloses a central core 11 includes a germanium doped silica and the cladding 12 includes an undoped silica (¶0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core include a germanium doped silica and the cladding include an undoped silica as similarly taught by Mukasa, since 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) and San Roman Alerigi (Patent No. US 11,604,323) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Burov (Pub. No. US 2013/0175437).
As to claim 12, Petisce does not disclose that the fiber encapsulation layer includes a temperature resistant layer.
Burov discloses a glass cladding optionally surrounded by a temperature resistant layer (¶0038).
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 fiber encapsulation layer include a temperature resistant layer as similarly taught by Burov in order to provide an insulating layer capable of keeping its mechanical properties in a range of temperature.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) and San Roman Alerigi (Patent No. US 11,604,323) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734).
As to claim 15, Petisce does not disclose that the optical fiber assembly has a bend radius of less than 250 mm with a micro-bending induced optical energy transmission loss of equal to or less than about 5.0 dB/km.
Homma discloses an optical fiber cable with a reduced micro-bending loss (¶0018).
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 fiber assembly have a bend radius of less than 250 mm with a micro-bending induced optical energy transmission loss of equal to or less than about 5.0 dB/km, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the micro-bending inducted transmission loss by adjusting the thickness or the young’s modulus of the insulating layers) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734).
As to claim 18, Homma discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a strength member, including:
a core 18, 13 formed of a composite material, an encapsulation layer 14 disposed around the core, and an optical fiber assembly disposed in the core, the optical fiber assembly including a fiber core 11 and a fiber encapsulation layer 13 disposed around the core, the optical fiber assembly having a bend radius of equal to or less than about 250 mm (¶0034).
However, Homma does not disclose that the optical fiber assembly having a bend radius of equal to or less than about 250 mm such that the optical fiber assembly has a micro-bending induced optical energy transmission loss of equal to or less than about 5.0 dB/km.
Homma discloses an optical fiber cable with a reduced micro-bending loss (¶0018).
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 fiber assembly have a micro-bending induced optical energy transmission loss of equal to or less than about 5.0 dB/km, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the micro-bending inducted transmission loss by adjusting the thickness or the young’s modulus of the insulating layers) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Asa to claim 20, Homma discloses that the optical fiber assembly has a bend radius of less than 10 mm (¶0034).
As to claim 21, Homma does not disclose that the optical fiber assembly has a micro-bending induced loss of equal to or less than about 1.0 dB/km.
Homma discloses an optical fiber cable with a reduced micro-bending loss (¶0018). 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 fiber assembly have a micro-bending induced loss of equal to or less than about 1.0 dB/km, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the micro-bending inducted transmission loss by adjusting the thickness or the young’s modulus of the insulating layers) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Marru et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0236374).
As to claim 19, Homma does not disclose that the optical fiber assembly includes a G.657.B3 single mode fiber.
Marru discloses that the optical fiber assembly includes a G.657.B3 single mode fiber (¶0064).
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 fiber assembly of Homma include a G.657.B3 fiber as similarly taught by Marru in order to provide a ultra bend-insensitive single-mode optical fiber.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of San Roman Alerigi (Patent No. US 11,604,323).
As to claim 22, Homma discloses that the fiber core includes: a central core 11; and a cladding 12 disposed around the central core.
However, Homma does not disclose that the cladding having a thickness in a range of about 80 µm to about 1,000 µm.
San Roman Alerigi discloses a cladding having a thickness of in a range of about 80 µm and to about 1,000 µm (see claim 8).
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 cladding of Homma have a thickness be in a range of about 80 µm and to about 1,000 µm as similarly taught by San Roman Alerigi since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the thickness of a in order to adjust flexibility and insulating properties) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of
Mukasa (Pub. No. US 2020/0400882).
As to claim 23, Homma discloses that the fiber core includes: a central core 11; and a cladding 12 disposed around the central core.
Mukasa discloses a central core 11 includes a germanium doped silica and the cladding 12 includes an undoped silica (¶0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the core include a germanium doped silica and the cladding include an undoped silica as similarly taught by Mukasa, since 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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Burov (Pub. No. US 2013/0175437).
As to claim 24, Petisce does not disclose that the fiber encapsulation layer includes a thermal resistant layer.
Burov discloses a glass cladding optionally surrounded by a temperature resistant layer (¶0038).
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 fiber encapsulation layer include a thermal resistant layer as similarly taught by Burov in order to provide an insulating layer capable of keeping its mechanical properties in a range of temperature.
Claim(s) 18, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) in view of Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734).
As to claim 18, Petisce discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a strength member, including:
a core 11 (fig. 2) formed of a composite material,
an encapsulation layer 17 disposed around the core, and
an optical fiber assembly (fig. 2) disposed in the core, the optical fiber assembly including a fiber core 21 and a fiber encapsulation layer 13 disposed around the core.
However, Petisce does not disclose that the optical fiber assembly having a bend radius of equal to or less than about 250 mm such that the optical fiber assembly has a micro-bending induced optical energy transmission loss of equal to or less than about 5.0 dB/km.
Homma discloses an optical fiber cable having a bend radius of equal to or less than about 250 mm (¶0034) with a reduced micro-bending loss (¶0018).
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 fiber assembly have a micro-bending induced optical energy transmission loss of equal to or less than about 5.0 dB/km, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the micro-bending inducted transmission loss by adjusting the thickness or the young’s modulus of the insulating layers) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 26, Petisce discloses that the fiber encapsulation layer further comprises: an inner moisture exclusion layer 14 disposed on the fiber core, the inner moisture exclusion layer configured to inhibit moisture ingress into the fiber core.
As to claim 27, Petisce discloses an outer moisture exclusion layer 17 disposed around the optical fiber assembly, the outer moisture exclusion layer configured to inhibit moisture ingress into the optical fiber assembly (Col. 3 lines 60-63).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) and Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of San Roman Alerigi (Patent No. US 11,604,323).
As to claim 22, Petisce discloses that the fiber core includes: a central core; and a cladding disposed around the central core (col. 4 lines 22-25),
However, Petisce does not disclose that the cladding having a thickness in a range of about 80 µm to about 1,000 µm.
San Roman Alerigi discloses a cladding having a thickness of in a range of about 80 µm and to about 1,000 µm (see claim 8).
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 cladding of Petisce have a thickness be in a range of about 80 µm and to about 1,000 µm as similarly taught by San Roman Alerigi since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the thickness of a in order to adjust flexibility and insulating properties) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petisce (Patent No. US 5,539,849) and Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0192734) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Burov (Pub. No. US 2013/0175437).
As to claim 24, Petisce does not disclose that the fiber encapsulation layer includes a thermal resistant layer.
Burov discloses a glass cladding optionally surrounded by a temperature resistant layer (¶0038).
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 fiber encapsulation layer include a thermal resistant layer as similarly taught by Burov in order to provide an insulating layer capable of keeping its mechanical properties in a range of temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14, 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claims 8 and 12, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein the core of the strength member has a first glass transition temperature or melting temperature, or the strength member has a processing temperature, and the temperature resistant layer has a second glass transition temperature or melting temperature that is greater than the first glass transition temperature or melting temperature, or processing temperature of the strength member. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claims 8 and 12, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein the fiber encapsulation layer further includes a jacket disposed on the temperature resistant layer, the jacket having a Young's modulus of greater than about 30 MPa. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding dependent claim 25, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claims 18 and 24, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein the fiber encapsulation layer further includes a jacket disposed on the thermal resistant layer, the second layer having a Young's modulus of greater than about 30 MPa. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMOL H PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7833. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, TIMOTHY THOMPSON can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/AMOL H PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights