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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-16 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. The dependent claims include the indefinite language of the independent claims.
Claims 1, 15 and 16 recite the material is derived from…”or other related compounds”. The term “other related compounds” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “other related compounds” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-4, 7-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chmurski et al (WO 2022/260903 A1) and Margolis (US 4,148,560).
Chmurski teaches:
1. An optical cable (10, Figs. 1-2) for blown installation (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 the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)) comprising:
a central strength member (middle 14) comprising at least one first optical fiber (20) and a resin layer (24 of the middle 14) encasing the at least one first optical fiber (20) (P0014);
at least one tube (outer 14s) arranged about the central strength member (middle 14) and loosely housing at least one second optical fiber (20) (P0012); and
an outer sheath (16) surrounding the least one tube (outer 14s).
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 the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
2. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tube (outer 14s) is in direct contact with an outer surface of the resin layer (24) of the central strength member (middle 14) (P0016).
3. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tube (outer 14s) is wounded or oscillated about the central strength member (middle 14) (P0021).
4. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tube (outer 14s) is laid in parallel to a longitudinal axis of the optical cable (10) (P0021).
7. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tube (outer 14s) arranged about the central strength member (middle 14) includes M tubes, M being 6 (Fig. 1).
8. The optical cable according to claim 7, wherein each tube (outer 14s) of the at least one tube loosely houses at most 24 second optical fibers (6 tubes with 4 fibers each = 24 fibers).
9. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the central strength member (middle 14) and the at least one tube each (outer 14s) have diameters between 0.9 mm and 1.5 mm, inclusive (P0013).
10. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the central strength member (middle 14) and the at least one tube (outer 14s) have substantially a same diameter (P0013).
15. A method for manufacturing an optical cable (10) for blown installation, the method comprising:
encasing at least one first optical fiber (20) in a resin layer (24) to obtain a central strength member (middle 14);
arranging about the resin layer (24) at least one tube (outer 14s) loosely housing at least one second optical fiber (20) (P0012); and
extruding an outer sheath (16) in a radially outer position with respect to the at least one tube (outer 14s) (P0025).
Chmurski does not teach expressly the resin layer embedding the optical fiber and being made of a thermo-plastic/setting material derived from (meth)acrylic acid.
Margolis teaches an optical fiber cable (Figure) comprising optical fibers (5) embedded in a thermoplastic acrylic resin (C2 L60 – C3 L5).
Chmurski and Margolis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the central strength member of Chmurski to include the fiber embedded in an acrylic resin as taught by Margolis. Chmurski specifically states the central bore of the subunits may include additional materials such as tube filling compounds (P0012).
The motivation for doing so would have been to add structural integrity to the cable.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chmurski and Margolis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jamet et al (US 7,082,241 B2).
Chmurski and Margolis teach the optical cable previously discussed.
Chmurski and Margolis do not teach expressly a water blocking material within the outer sheath, the water blocking material at least partially embedding the at least one tube.
Jamet teaches an optical fiber cable (9, Fig. 9), comprising a water blocking material (13) within an outer sheath (11, 12), the water blocking material at least partially embedding at least one tube (10) (C9 L36-61).
Chmurski, Margolis and Jamet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cable of Chmurski and Margolis to include a water blocking material within the outer sheath as taught by Jamet.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a sealing function for the cable (Jamet, C9 L36-52).
Chmurski and Margolis does not teach expressly the at least one first optical fiber includes N first optical fibers, N in a range from 8 to 12, inclusive.
Jamet teaches an optical fiber cable (9, Fig. 9), comprising at least one first optical fiber (2) of tube modules (10) includes N first optical fibers, N in a range from 8 to 12, inclusive (C9 L20-26).
Chmurski, Margolis and Jamet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cable of Chmurski and Margolis to include the number of fibers in each tube as taught by Jamet.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide increase the possible bandwidth of the cable.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chmurski and Margolis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaillard et al (US 6,483,971 B2).
Chmurski and Margolis teach the optical cable previously discussed.
Chmurski further teaches:
16. An apparatus for manufacturing an optical cable (10) for blown installation, the apparatus comprising:
a guide for providing at least one tube (outer 14s) loosely housing at least one second optical fiber (20) about the resin material (24) (P0021); and
an extruder for forming an outer sheath (16) around the at least one tube (outer 14s) (P0025).
Chmurski and Margolis do not teach expressly the resin layer comprises at least one acrylate material and at least one resin applicator for applying at least one resin material on at least one first optical fiber and at least one curing device for curing the at least one resin material.
Gaillard teaches an optical cable (Figs. 1-3) comprising a central strength member (middle 120) comprising at least one optical fiber (14) and a resin layer (part of 120) encasing the fibers (14) wherein the resin layer comprises at least one acrylate material (C8 L21-30) and at least one resin applicator for applying at least one resin material (buffer tube material) on at least one first optical fiber (14) and at least one curing device for curing the at least one resin material (C8 L21-30, claims 40-42).
Chmurski, Margolis and Gaillard are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cable of Chmurski and Margolis to include an acrylate as the resin as taught by Gaillard and to apply and cure the resin around the fibers as taught by Gaillard.
The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to bond the tubes at a stranding point (Gaillard, C8 L21-30).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chmurski and Margolis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutehall et al (US 2016/0274324 A1).
Chmurski and Margolis teach the optical cable previously discussed.
Chmurski and Margolis do not teach expressly the resin layer comprises a first layer of a first resin material and a second layer of a second resin material radially outer to the first layer, wherein the second resin material has a secant modulus higher (500-1000MPa) than a secant modulus of the first resin material.
Sutehall teaches an optical cable (1, Fig. 1) wherein a resin layer (3) encasing an optical fiber (2) comprises a first layer (3i) of a first resin material and a second layer (3o) of a second resin material radially outer to the first layer (3i), wherein the second resin material (3o) has a secant modulus higher (500-1000MPa) than a secant modulus of the first resin material (3i) (0.5-25MPa) (P0052, 0054-0055).
Chmurski, Margolis and Sutehall are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resin layer of Chmurski and Margolis to include the two layers with the claimed secant modulus as taught by Sutehall.
The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent external forces acting on the unit are transferred to the optical fibers while providing for easy installation in the field as it can be easily removed from the optical conductors, without damaging them (Sutehall, P0052).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Hollweg can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874