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 any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-8, 10, 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 5,905,834). Anderson teaches:
1/15/16. An optical cable (10, Fig. 1) for blown installation (C4 L23-36)/method of forming the same/apparatus for making the same comprising:
a central member (12) comprising at least one first optical fiber (part of 22) and an applicated resin layer (tube material with the water blocking material) embedding the at least one first optical fiber (part of 22), the resin layer being made of a thermoplastic (HDPE – known cured thermoplastic, C4 L10-11);
at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) arranged about the central member (12) and loosely housing at least one second optical fiber (24), the at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) having an outer material (PBT – known cured thermoplastic, C4 L11-14) different from the plastic material (HDPE) of the resin layer of the central member (12), the at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) in direct contact with an outer surface of the resin layer of the central member (12) (C5 L12-38); and
an outer sheath (26) surrounding the least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20).
3. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) is wounded or oscillated about the central strength member (12) (C5 L13-46).
4. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) is laid in parallel to a longitudinal axis of the optical cable (10) (Fig. 1).
5. The optical cable according to claim 1, further comprising a water blocking material (32) within the outer sheath (26), the water blocking material (32) at least partially embedding the at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) (C4 L37-64).
7. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) arranged about the central member (12) includes M tubes, M being 6 or smaller than 6 (four, Fig. 1).
8. The optical cable according to claim 7, wherein each tube (14, 16, 18, 20) of the at least one tube loosely houses at most 24 second optical fibers (six, Fig. 1).
10. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the central member (12) and the at least one tube (14, 16, 18, 20) have substantially a same diameter (C3 L41-54).
11. The optical cable according to claim 1, wherein the resin layer (material of 12 and the water blocking material) comprises at least one acrylate material (sodium acrylate, C4 L51-55).
Anderson does not state the central member is a strength member or the outer sheath being extruded or the number of first fibers is 8 to 12.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16: Anderson does teach the central tube is made of a high density material (C4 L10-23) and that the tubes (14, 16, 18, 20) are engaged and wound with the central tube (12) so the central tube provides the base strength for all of the outer tubes (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using the central tube a central strength member, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this predictable since the material used for the central member is high density and the central tube would succeed as being a strength member since this tube provides the rigid support material for the outer tubes to be wound about.
Regarding claim 15: Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to extrude the outer sheath on the cable, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Extruding outer sheaths of cables is a standard method of making optical cable jackets and one of ordinary skill the art would expect extruding to work just fine with the cable of Anderson since the central core of the cable is wound in a steel armor, making extruding a polymer jacket easy.
Regarding claim 6: Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have 8 to 12 fibers in the central tube, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Anderson shows 16 fibers and teaches the number of fibers can be more or less (C3 L32-54), therefore 8 to 12 would be a predictable solution and one of ordinary skill the art would expect 8 to 12 to succeed since that would just be one less ribbon than shown (Fig. 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chmurski et al (WO 2022/260903 A1).
Anderson teaches the cable previously discussed.
Anderson does not teach expressly explicit values for the diameter of the central and other tubes.
Chmurski teaches an optical cable (10, Figs. 1-2) with a central strength member (middle 14) and at least one tube (outer 14s) arranged about eh central strength member wherein the diameter of the tubes/member are between 0.9 and 1.5 mm (P0013).
Anderson and Chmurski 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 Anderson to use the diameter values for the tubes taught by Chmurski.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide tubes that can house a number of optical fibers.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutehall et al (US 2016/0274324 A1).
Anderson teaches the optical cable previously discussed.
Anderson does 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 (30) 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).
Anderson 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 Anderson 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
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 9AM-6PM 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 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights