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 Amendment filed January 26, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 26, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Inventorship
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3 and 7: The limitation “when crimping of a copper conductor of the cable is complete….” renders the claims indefinite because it is speculative. It is not clear whether the conditional limitation must actually be present. In this instant, it is not clear if the optical fiber unit led out from the outer sheath must actually be present because it appears that the limitation is only present when the copper conductors is crimped and the insulating layer and the outer sheath are is repaired. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, the limitation has not been further treated on the merits because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s). This is not an indication that the claims are allowable. The scope of the claim(s) is unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP § 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph (emphasis added): … where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The newly added phrase “configured to be” is directed towards a spliced configuration, i.e. the cable when used in a splice, and not to the cable structure that is being claimed in claim 1. Therefore, all of the limitations of claim 3 directed to the splice, the casing, the heat shrinkable material, etc. are not part of the unspliced/unconnected cable being claimed in claim 1 and are therefore not further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Amended Claim 4 and 8 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 claim 4, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious: “The cable structure with information transmission and risk early warning functions according to claim 1, wherein, the casing of the optical fiber unit is wound around a surface of the cable in an "8".”
Regarding claim 8, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious: “The method according to claim 5, wherein, the casing of the optical fiber unit is wound around a surface of the cable in an "8".
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al.
(AU2019100250A4).
Regarding Claim 1: Zheng et al discloses a cable structure (Figure 1) with information
transmission and risk early warning functions (see abstract), comprising:
a power transmission unit (3) and an optical fiber unit (including both 1 and 2; figure 1), wherein the optical fiber unit comprises a communicating optical fiber unit (1) and a sensing optical fiber unit (2);
the communicating optical fiber unit (1; figure 2) consists of a single-mode optical fiber (102) and a casing (103) for protecting the optical fiber (102);
the sensing optical fiber unit (2; figure 3) consists of a single-mode optical fiber and/or a multimode optical fiber (201) and a casing (205) for protecting the optical fiber (201);
The optical fiber unit (including both 1 and 2; figure 1) comprises a plurality of optical fibers (page 6 lines 21-24);
the optical fiber (102) in the communicating optical fiber unit (1) and the optical fiber (201) in the sensing optical fiber unit (2) are packaged separately in separate casings (103 and 205) (see page 5 lines 12-21: The polyolefin sheathing layer functions as a casing for the optical unit for communication and the Teflon sheathing layer is functions as a casing for the optical unit for early warning.)
the optical fiber unit (1 and 2) is placed between an outer sheath (7) and an insulating layer (303) of the power transmission unit (see figure 1 where the optical unit for communication (1) is disposed between the polyolefin insulating layer (303) of the power transmission unit (3) and the external sheath (7). The optical fiber for early warning (2) is disposed between the polyolefin insulating layer (303) of the power transmission unit (3) and the external sheath (7)).
the optical fiber unit (1 and 2) is arranged linearly along an axis of a cable (figure 1); the optical fiber (102) in the communicating optical fiber unit (1) is configured for information transmission (see page 6 paragraph 7); and the optical fiber (201) in the sensing optical fiber unit (2) is configured for risk early warning on the cable and reduction of major safety accidents (see page 7 paragraph 2, where the optical unit for early warning can be monitored for temperature so that a fire, a major safety accident, may be spotted at the beginning of its occurrence);
Wherein a bending radius of the optical fiber unit is not less than 30 times an outer diameter of the casing of the optical fiber unit.
The examiner notes that "a bending radius" is an intended use of the optical fiber unit. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II. Additionally, the cable structure described by Zheng is subject to minor bending during use, as recognized by one skilled in the art.
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 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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et
al. (AU201900250A4) in view of Sutehall et al (US9529170B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Zheng et al discloses a cable structure (Figure 1) with
information transmission and risk early warning functions (see abstract) of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the optical fiber unit has an outer diameter in a range of 2.5-6.0 mm and a wall thickness in a range of 0.2-2.0mm. Sutehall et al. discloses an optical fiber having an outer sheath (wall) thickness of 0.5mm in a cable having an outer diameter of 6.0mm (see column 7 lines 24-25).
It would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate known and conventional dimensional parameters for optical fibers casings as taught by Sutehall to optimize the physical integrating and durability of the fiber within the power cable structure.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (AU 2019100250 A4) in view of Norris et al. (US6504979B1) and Dumintriu (US6367900B1).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng et al. discloses a cable structure (Figure 1) with information transmission and risk early warning functions (see abstract) of claim 1 above.
Zheng et al. further discloses a fiberglass wrapping tape, which is considered to be a water-resistant layer, between the external sheath (casing), the optical fiber (page 5 lines 23-28), but fails to teach a fiber paste or dry-type water blocking powder between the external sheath (casing) and optical fiber.
Norris et al teaches a water blocking member (see 28 in Figures 1 and 2) coated with a superabsorbent polymer powder disposed between the optical fibers and a casing (column 3 lines 3-11). The superabsorbent polymer powder is interpreted to be a dry-type water blocking powder.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fiber optic cable taught by Zheng et al. by incorporating the superabsorbent polymer powder of Norris et al. between the external sheath and the optical fibers to achieve enhanced water blocking.
Zheng et al./Norris et al fails to teach an optical fiber splice closure is disposed at splices of the single-mode optical fiber and the multimode optical fiber; the casing and the cable are tightly wrapped by a heat-shrinkable material; the naked casing is wound around an outer wall of the outer sheath of the cable by using the heat-shrinkable material; and the optical fiber splice closure is sealed by the heat-shrinkable material.
Dumitriu discloses a heat-shrinkable assembly, interpreted to be an optical fiber splice closure; a heat-shrinkable (naked casing) tube made of an artificial resin material for protecting fusioned optical fiber splices (column 3 lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that any exposed optical fiber splice is extremely delicate and requires protection from environmental and mechanical damage to function reliably in the form of a splice closure. Further, it would have been obvious to combine the known methods of using heat-shrinkable material for sealing splices and the known method of winding protective strength members or casings helically or in a stranded manner around a splice.
Zheng et al/Norris et al/Dumintriu fails to teach a heat shrinkable material covering the optical fiber unit by a length great than 1m.
A person of ordinary skill is the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the existing sealing methods to achieve a length of great than 1m to solve known problems in the field related to environmental exposure, reliability, and mechanical issues. A longer seal provides a more extensive barrier, enhances the adhesion surface area, and accommodates potential material shrinkage and mechanical strain better than a shorter seal.
Zheng et al/Norris et al/Dumintriu fails to discloses wherein when crimping of a copper conductor (301) of the cable is completed and the waterproof insulating layer (303) and the outer sheath (7) of the power transmission unit are repaired, the optical fiber unit is led out from the outer sheath, and the optical fiber unit is welded after sealing between the optical fiber unit and the outer sheath is made; a water blocking fiber paste or a dry-type water blocking powder is injected between the casing and the single-mode optical fiber as well as the multimode optical fiber (5). The examiner notes that Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the cable structure, and therefore are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng et al discloses a cable structure (Figure 1) with information transmission and risk early warning functions (see abstract) of claim 1 above.
Zheng et al. further discloses a fiberglass wrapping tape, which is considered to be a water-resistant layer, between the external sheath (casing), the optical fiber (page 5 lines 23-28), but fails to teach a fiber paste or dry-type water blocking powder between the external sheath (casing) and optical fiber.
Norris et al teaches a water blocking member (see 28 in Figures 1 and 2) coated with a superabsorbent polymer powder disposed between the optical fibers and a casing (column 3 lines 3-11). The superabsorbent polymer powder is interpreted to be a dry-type water blocking powder.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fiber optic cable taught by Zheng et al. by incorporating the superabsorbent polymer powder of Norris et al. between the external sheath and the optical fibers to achieve enhanced water blocking.
Zheng et al./Norris et al fails to teach an optical fiber splice closure is disposed at splices of the single-mode optical fiber and the multimode optical fiber; the casing and the cable are tightly wrapped by a heat-shrinkable material; the naked casing is wound around an outer wall of the outer sheath of the cable by using the heat-shrinkable material; and the optical fiber splice closure is sealed by the heat-shrinkable material;
Dumitriu discloses an optical fiber splice closure is disposed at splices of the single-mode optical fiber and the multimode optical fiber (column 3 lines 40-50): The heat-shrinkable assembly is interpreted to be an optical fiber splice closure.); a heat-shrinkable (naked casing) tube made of an artificial resin material for protecting fusioned optical fiber splices (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that any exposed optical fiber splice is extremely delicate and requires protection from environmental and mechanical damage to function reliably in the form of a splice closure. Further, it would have been obvious to combine the known methods of using heat-shrinkable material for sealing splices and the known method of winding protective strength members or casings helically or in a stranded manner around a splice.
Zheng et al/Norris et al/Dumintriu fails to teach a heat shrinkable material covering the optical fiber unit by a length great than 1m.
A person of ordinary skill is the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the existing sealing methods to achieve a length of great than 1m to solve known problems in the field related to environmental exposure, reliability, and mechanical issues. A longer seal provides a more extensive barrier, enhances the adhesion surface area, and accommodates potential material shrinkage and mechanical strain better than a shorter seal.
Zheng et al/Norris et al/Dumintriu fails to disclose, wherein when crimping of a copper conductor (301) of the cable is completed and the waterproof insulating layer (303) and the outer sheath (7) of the power transmission unit are repaired, the optical fiber unit is led out from the outer sheath, and the optical fiber unit is welded after sealing between the optical fiber unit and the outer sheath is made; a water blocking fiber paste or a dry-type water blocking powder is injected between the casing and the single-mode optical fiber as well as the multimode optical fiber (5).
It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that crimping copper conductors is an established method for creating reliable connections. Further, the method of “injecting” dry powders into the interstitial spaces of a cable during manufacturing is a widely known technique use to ensure even distribution of the water-blocking material throughout the cable length.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (AU2019100250A4).
Regarding Claim 5 , Zheng et al discloses a cable structure (Figure 1) with information transmission and risk early warning functions (see abstract) of claim 1 above, but fails to teach a method of connecting an optical fiber in the cable to a corresponding optical fiber switch to realize the information transmission function; and connecting an optical fiber in the cable to an optical fiber sensing demodulator for real-time distributed acquisition and analysis of safety and health data of the cable, thereby providing early warning on cable safety.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect an optical fiber within a cable structure to a switch for information transmission and a sensing demodulator for real-time monitoring. The configuration addresses the known industry problem of needing to integrate continuous monitoring for critical infrastructure, applying established sensing technique to existing communication assets to provide a self-monitoring capability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26. 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to include "wherein a bending radius of the optical fiber unit is not less than 30 times an outer diameter of the casing of the optical fiber unit." Applicant argues that Zheng, Sutehall, Norris, or Dumintiu do not disclose (or suggest) at least the above underlined distinguishing features (Remarks: Page 12 Par. 1 ,Page 13 Par. 2-3, Page 14 Par. 7, Page 16 Par. 1)).
The examiner disagrees. The limitation is interpreted to be intended use. The cable structure of Zheng, Sutehall, Norris, or Dumintiu, or any cable similar, may slightly bend during use, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art and would be the limitation of a bending radius of the optical fiber unit that is not less than 30 times an outer diameter of the casing of the optical fiber unit. Additionally, it would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate known and conventional dimensional parameters for optical fibers casings as taught by Sutehall to optimize the physical integrating and durability of the fiber within the power cable structure.
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 TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874