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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement filed 4/15/2024 and 12/09/2024 have been considered.
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 2-17 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 2: Although claim 2 defines “A1” and “B1”, it fails define the terms “A0” and “B0”. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter claimed by the recitation, “(i) A--1<0.8xA0 or A1>1.2xA0, or (ii) B1<0.8xB0 or B1>1.2xB0”. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. Claims 3-17 depend on claim 2, and they do not further clarify what “A0” and “B0” values are. As such, claims 3-17 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 2, and they are also rejected under 35 USC 112.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,899,258 B2 (hereinafter “the ‘258 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims of the present application are obvious variations of the patented claims of the ‘258 patent.
Specifically, regarding claim 2 the ‘258 patent claims a communication system comprising: at least one fiber-optic cable comprises a cable segment that has a plurality of optical fibers laterally encased by a cable sheath (col. 12, ll. 50-53); wherein the cable segment is constructed to permit relative lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers within the cable sheath to change a cross-sectional shape of the cable segment upon bending of the cable segment greater than a predetermined degree (col. 12, ll. 56-60) such that the bent cable segment has a longest cross-sectional dimension A1 and a shortest cross-sectional dimension B1, and at least one of (i) A--1<0.8xA0 or A1>1.2xA0, or (ii) B1<0.8xB0 or B1>1.2xB0 (col. 12, ll. 61-64).
However, it does not explicitly disclose the use of at least two optical communication devices; and at least one fiber-optic cable interconnecting the at least two optical communication devices, in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting them is well known and common in the art. Optical communications devices and interconnecting optical fibers are commonly used in the art because they allow for high-bandwidth, high-speed data communication that is not susceptible to electromagnetic interferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the invention of the ‘258 patent to claim at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting the devices, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 3, the ‘258 patent claims a communication system as discussed above regarding claim 2. However, the ‘258 patent does not explicitly claim the use of at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices. However, such an external optical power supply would have been necessarily present in the optical communication system of the ‘258 patent since the optical system must receive optical input from an external supply source in order for communication function to work. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily motivated to modify the claimed subject matter of the ‘258 patent to recite such external optical power supply. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claimed invention of the ‘258 patent to recite at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 4, the ‘258 patent claims wherein the cable segment is configured to change the cross-sectional shape in response to being bent (col. 12, ll. 65-67).
Regarding claim 5, the ‘258 patent claims wherein, in a bent portion of the cable segment, a pair of the optical fibers is laterally separated by a larger distance than any two of the optical fibers in a straight portion of the cable segment (col. 13, ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, the ‘258 patent claims wherein, in a bent portion of the cable segment, a pair of the optical fibers is laterally separated by a larger distance than any two points in an orthogonal cross-section of a straight portion of the cable segment (col. 13, ll. 5-9).
Regarding claim 7, the ‘258 patent claims wherein the cable sheath comprises a layer of a laterally flexible material (col. 13, ll. 10-11).
Regarding claim 8 the ‘258 patent claims wherein the cable sheath comprises a layer of a laterally stretchable material (col. 13, ll. 12-13).
Regarding claim 9 the ‘258 patent claims the plurality of optical fibers comprises at least 100 optical fibers (col. 13, ll. 14-16).
Regarding claim 10 the ‘258 patent claims wherein the plurality of optical fibers comprises at least 1000 optical fibers (col. 13, ll. 17-18).
Regarding claim 11 the ‘258 patent claims, wherein each cable segment comprises one or more strength members (col. 13, ll. 19-20).
Regarding claim 12 the ‘258 patent claims wherein the cable segment is constructed to permit lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers with respect to the one or more strength members (col. 13, ll. 21-24).
Regarding claim 13 the ‘258 patent claims wherein at least some of the strength members are distributed throughout an interior of the cable (col. 13, ll. 25-26).
Regarding claim 14 the ‘258 patent claims wherein at least some of the strength members are more concentrated near a center of the cable (col. 13, ll. 28-30).
Regarding claim 15 the ‘258 patent claims wherein at least some of the strength members are attached to an inner surface of the cable sheath (col. 13, ll. 31-33).
Regarding claim 16 the ‘258 patent claims, wherein at least some of the strength members are embedded within the cable sheath (col. 13, ll. 34-35).
Regarding claim 17 the ‘258 patent claims wherein at least some of the strength members are attached to an outer surface of the cable sheath (col. 13, ll. 36-38).
Regarding claim 18, the ‘258 patent claims a communication system comprising: at least one raceway having a hollow cable conduit, the hollow cable conduit having a curved portion and a straight portion connected to the curved portion, the curved portion of the hollow cable conduit having a larger cross-sectional size measured orthogonally to a main plane of the raceway than a corresponding cross-sectional size of the straight portion of the hollow cable conduit (col. 13, ll. 38-51); and at least one fiber-optic cable laid in the at least one hollow cable conduit of the raceway (col. 14, ll. 16-18), each of the at least one fiber-optic cable comprising a cable segment that has a plurality of optical fibers laterally encased by a cable sheath (col. 14, ll. 19-21), the cable segment comprises one or more strength members, and the cable segment is constructed to permit lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers with respect to the one or more strength members (col. 13, ll. 19-24; col. 14, ll. 21-25).
However, the ‘258 patent does not explicitly claim at least two optical communication devices wherein the at least one fiber-optic cable interconnects the at least two optical communication devices as recited in the present application. On the other hand, the use of at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting them is well known and common in the art. Optical communications devices and interconnecting optical fibers are commonly used in the art because they allow for high-bandwidth, high-speed data communication that is not susceptible to electromagnetic interferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the invention of the ‘258 patent to claim at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting the devices, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 19, the ‘258 patent claims a communication system as discussed above regarding claim 18. However, the ‘258 patent does not explicitly claim the use of at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices. However, such an external optical power supply would have been necessarily present in the optical communication system of the ‘258 patent since the optical system must receive optical input from an external supply source in order for communication function to work. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily motivated to modify the claimed subject matter of the ‘258 patent to recite such external optical power supply. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claimed invention of the ‘258 patent to recite at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 20, the ‘258 patent claims wherein the raceway has a substantially constant height along the curved and straight portions, said height being measured orthogonally to the main plain (col. 14, ll. 8-12).
Regarding claim 21, the ‘258 patent claims wherein the raceway has a larger height along the curved portion than along the straight portion, said height being measured orthogonally to the main plain (col. 14, ll. 13-18).
Claims 22-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, 17-20, of U.S. Patent No. 11,194,109 B2 (hereinafter “the ‘109 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims of the present application are obvious variations of the patented claims of the ‘109 patent.
Specifically regarding claim 22, the ‘109 patent claims a communication system comprising: at least one fiber-optic cable, wherein the at least one fiber-optic cable comprises a cable segment that has a plurality of optical fibers laterally encased by a cable sheath (col. 14, ll. 9-11); wherein the plurality of optical fibers are permitted to move laterally relative to one another to become relatively spatially rearranged from a first cross-section of the cable segment to a second cross-section of the cable segment (col. 14, ll. 13-18); and wherein the cable sheath comprises a laterally stretchable material that permits a cross- sectional shape of the cable segment to change in response to movement of the optical fibers within the cable sheath (col. 14, ll. 21-24).
However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim at least two optical communication devices wherein the at least one fiber-optic cable interconnects the at least two optical communication devices as recited in the present application. On the other hand, the use of at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting them is well known and common in the art. Optical communications devices and interconnecting optical fibers are commonly used in the art because they allow for high-bandwidth, high-speed data communication that is not susceptible to electromagnetic interferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the invention of the ‘109 patent to claim at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting the devices, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 23, the ‘109 patent claims a communication system as discussed above regarding claim 18. However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim the use of at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices. However, such an external optical power supply would have been necessarily present in the optical communication system of the ‘109 patent since the optical system must receive optical input from an external supply source in order for communication function to work. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily motivated to modify the claimed subject matter of the ‘109 patent to recite such external optical power supply. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claimed invention of the ‘109 patent to recite at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 24, the ‘109 patent claims wherein the cable segment comprises one or more strength members, and the cable segment is constructed to permit lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers with respect to the one or more strength members (col. 14, ll. 18-20).
Regarding claim 25, the ‘109 patent claims wherein each of the plurality of optical fibers comprises a coating, and wherein a cross-sectional diameter of each of the plurality of optical fibers does not exceed 900 micrometers (col. 14, ll. 25-28).
Regarding claim 26, the ‘109 patent claims wherein the cable segment is terminated by one or more connectors configured to interface with at least one of an optical communication device, an optical power supply, and a multiplexing unit (col. 14, ll. 29-32).
Regarding claim 27 the ‘109 patent claims wherein the plurality of optical fibers are arranged within a rectangular cross-section of the one or more connectors (col. 14, ll. 33-35).
Regarding claim 28, the ‘109 patent claims a fiber-optic cable comprising a cable segment that has a plurality of optical fibers laterally encased by a cable sheath, the cable segment comprises one or more strength members; and wherein the cable segment is constructed to permit relative lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers within the cable sheath to change a cross-sectional shape of the cable segment and the cable segment is constructed to permit lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers with respect to the one or more strength members (col. 12, ll. 43-53). Therefore, a method of using the communications system comprising a step of transmitting signals through at least one fiber optic cable, laterally moving at least some of the optical fibers in the manner claimed in the present application are also anticipated by the claims of the ‘109 patent.
However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim at least two optical communication devices and therefore a step of transmitting signals between the at least two optical communication devices as recited in the present application. On the other hand, the use of at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting them is well known and common in the art. Optical communications devices and interconnecting optical fibers are commonly used in the art because they allow for high-bandwidth, high-speed data communication that is not susceptible to electromagnetic interferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the invention of the ‘109 patent to claim at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting the devices, and a step of transmitting optical signals between the optical communications devices in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 29, the ‘109 patent claims a method of using the communication system as discussed above regarding claim 28. However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim the use of at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices. However, such an external optical power supply would have been necessarily present in the optical communication system of the ‘109 patent since the optical system must receive optical input from an external supply source in order for communication function to work. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily motivated to modify the claimed subject matter of the ‘109 patent to recite such external optical power supply. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claimed invention of the ‘109 patent to recite at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 30-31, the ‘109 patent claims a communication system as discussed above regarding claim 22-23, and anticipates a method of using such a communications system as discussed above regarding claim 28-29. As such the ‘109 patent also anticipates the method of assembling such a communication system in the manner claimed in claims 30-31. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the filing of the present application to modify the claims of the ‘109 patent to claim the steps of assembling such a communication system as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 32, the ‘109 patent claims an apparatus comprising a raceway having a hollow cable conduit, the hollow cable conduit having a curved portion and a straight portion connected to the curved portion, the curved portion of the hollow cable conduit having a larger cross-sectional size measured orthogonally to a main plane of the raceway than a corresponding cross-sectional size of the straight portion of the hollow cable conduit; and a fiber-optic cable laid in the hollow cable conduit of the raceway, the fiber-optic cable comprising a cable segment that has a plurality of optical fibers laterally encased by a cable sheath, the cable segment comprises one or more strength members, and the cable segment is constructed to permit lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers with respect to the one or more strength members (col. 13, ll. 21-36). Therefore, a method of operating such a communication system is also anticipated by the ‘109 patent.
However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim at least two optical communication devices and therefore a step of transmitting signals between the at least two optical communication devices as recited in the present application. On the other hand, the use of at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting them is well known and common in the art. Optical communications devices and interconnecting optical fibers are commonly used in the art because they allow for high-bandwidth, high-speed data communication that is not susceptible to electromagnetic interferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the invention of the ‘109 patent to claim at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting the devices, and a step of transmitting optical signals between the optical communications devices in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 33, the ‘109 patent the ‘109 patent claims a method of using the communication system as discussed above regarding claim 32. However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim the use of at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices. However, such an external optical power supply would have been necessarily present in the optical communication system of the ‘109 patent since the optical system must receive optical input from an external supply source in order for communication function to work. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily motivated to modify the claimed subject matter of the ‘109 patent to recite such external optical power supply. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claimed invention of the ‘109 patent to recite at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 34, the ‘109 patent claims a fiber-optic cable comprising a cable segment that has a plurality of optical fibers laterally encased by a cable sheath, the cable segment comprises one or more strength members, wherein the plurality of optical fibers are permitted to move laterally relative to one another to become relatively spatially rearranged from a first cross-section of the cable segment to a second cross-section of the cable segment, and the cable segment is constructed to permit lateral movement of at least some of the optical fibers with respect to the one or more strength members, and wherein the cable sheath comprises a laterally stretchable material that permits a cross-sectional shape of the cable segment to change in response to movement of the optical fibers within the cable sheath (col. 14, ll. 9-24). As such the ‘109 patent also anticipates a method of using such a communication system.
However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim at least two optical communication devices and therefore a step of transmitting signals between the at least two optical communication devices as recited in the present application. On the other hand, the use of at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting them is well known and common in the art. Optical communications devices and interconnecting optical fibers are commonly used in the art because they allow for high-bandwidth, high-speed data communication that is not susceptible to electromagnetic interferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the invention of the ‘109 patent to claim at least two optical communications devices and at least one fiber optic cable interconnecting the devices, and a step of transmitting optical signals between the optical communications devices in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 35, the ‘109 patent the ‘109 patent claims a method of using the communication system as discussed above regarding claim 34. However, the ‘109 patent does not explicitly claim the use of at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices. However, such an external optical power supply would have been necessarily present in the optical communication system of the ‘109 patent since the optical system must receive optical input from an external supply source in order for communication function to work. One of ordinary skill in the art would be readily motivated to modify the claimed subject matter of the ‘109 patent to recite such external optical power supply. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the claimed invention of the ‘109 patent to recite at least one external optical power supply configured to produce light for use with communications devices as claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 5PM.
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.
/SUNG H PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874