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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 26 May, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, the previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Consonni fails to teach or suggest a conductor surrounding the first plurality of layered strength members, wherein a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube.
While Examiner acknowledges that Consonni lacks an explicit teaching that the radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube, this argument is unconvincing because it is considered that the thickness of these layers is a result effective variable which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize. Furthermore, the current invention fails to establish criticality of the claimed range, and there is no evidence to support that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
Applicant further relies on Consonni Fig. 1 to argue that Consonni discloses a polymeric buffer tube with a maximum radial thickness that is significantly greater than a radial thickness of a tubular metal sheath. Examiner disagrees since Consonni does not disclose that Fig. 1 is drawn to scale.
Applicant further argues that Spalding fails to cure the deficiency of Consonni, as Spalding teaches a conductor and hollow buffer tube having similar radial thicknesses. This argument has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Spalding for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16: The limitation “wherein a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube” lacks support in the original disclosure.
In the present disclosure, paragraphs 0017-0018 (citing PG Pub) state that the drawings are not to scale. Therefore, the scale in the figures cannot be relied on as support for the limitation “wherein a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube”. A range for the radial thickness of the conductors 240 and 340 is given in paragraphs 0031 and 0036, respectively, as between 0.5 mm and 0.9 mm. However, a range is not provided for the maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube. Figs. 2 and 3 label ID2 as the inner diameter of the buffer tube and OD2 as the outer diameter of the buffer tube. The inner diameter ID2 is not provided in the disclosure. Therefore, it appears that the original disclosure lacks support for the newly added limitation. If support can be found elsewhere in the original disclosure, it is requested that Applicant make clear for the record where there is support for the newly added limitation.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20: Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consonni et al. (US 2002/0136513; hereinafter Consonni).
Regarding claim 1: Consonni disclosesAn optical cable (Fig. 1) comprising: a hollow buffer tube (Fig. 1, buffer tube 101) having a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 1, optical fibers 105) therein, wherein the hollow buffer tube includes an inner buffer surface and an outer buffer surface (Fig. 1, the hollow buffer tube includes an inner buffer surface and an outer buffer surface), and wherein the outer buffer surface of the hollow buffer tube defines an outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube (Fig. 1, T1+D1+T2+D2+T3; paragraph 0066, the buffer tube disclosed to have a diameter preferably between 2.5 and 4.0 mm); a first plurality of layered strength members (Fig. 1, metallic wires 103, specifically the first layer that is directly adjacent to the hollow buffer tube) surrounding the hollow buffer tube; a conductor (Fig. 1, tubular metal sheath 107) surrounding the first plurality of layered strength members; and an outer jacket (Fig. 1, outer polymeric sheath 108) surrounding the conductor, wherein the outer jacket includes an inner jacket surface and an outer jacket surface (see Fig. 1, the outer jacket includes an inner jacket surface and an outer jacket surface), wherein the outer jacket defines an outer diameter of the outer jacket (Fig. 1, the outer jacket inherently defines an outer diameter of the outer jacket; paragraph 0084 discloses an outer diameter of the metal sheath is 9mm, while paragraph 0085 discloses a protective sheath thickness preferably between 3 and 5 mm, corresponding to an outer diameter of the outer jacket between 15 and 19 mm)
While Consonni fails to disclose that the outer diameter of the outer jacket is equal to or less than five times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, Consonni’s teachings of preferred dimensions of the outer diameter of the buffer tube and the outer jacket result in an outer diameter of the outer jacket being ~3.75-7.6 times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube. Based on the Consonni disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the Consonni cable having an outer diameter of the outer jacket being anywhere in the range from 3.75-7.6 times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, including wherein the outer diameter of the outer jacket is equal to or less than five times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, to minimize the overall size of the fiber while maintaining the ability to carry and protect the optical fibers.
Consonni does not disclose that a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the optical cable wherein a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Consonni teaches the optical cable of claim 1, as applied above, wherein the outer jacket has a radial thickness (paragraph 0085 discloses a protective sheath thickness preferably between 3 and 5 mm). Considering the preferable range of outer diameters of the hollow buffer tube (paragraph 0066, the buffer tube disclosed to have a diameter preferably between 2.5 and 4.0 mm), the preferred ranges disclosed by Consonni overlap with the presently claimed range, i.e. that the radial thickness is less than the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent any evidence of (a) the criticality of the claimed range to produce new and unexpected results, and/or (b) the prior art teaching away from the claimed invention. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(III). In the present case, the prior art's range renders obvious the claimed range because the current invention fails to establish criticality of the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill would have expected the prior art to operate as disclosed when utilizing the claimed range. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3: Modified Consonni teaches the optical cable of claim 1, as applied above. Consonni fails to teach that the plurality of optical fibers comprises greater than one hundred and forty optical fibers. The claimed arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed for the purpose of increasing the number of channels of the cable, and thereby expanding the information capacity and processing capabilities of the optical cable. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Consonni teaches the optical cable of claim 1, as applied above. Consonni fails to teach that the plurality of optical fibers comprises greater than two hundred and thirty optical fibers. The claimed arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed for the purpose of increasing the number of channels of the cable, and thereby expanding the information capacity and processing capabilities of the optical cable. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Consonni teachesThe optical cable of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising a second plurality of layered strength members (Fig. 1, the larger of the two sizes of metallic wires 103 surrounding the first layer of metallic wires) surrounding the hollow buffer tube, wherein each of the first plurality of strength members has a first diameter, and wherein each of the second plurality of strength members has a second diameter, different than the first diameter (Fig. 1 shows this; additionally, see paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Consonni teachesThe optical cable of claim 6 (as applied above), further comprising a third plurality of layered strength members (Fig. 1, the smaller of the two sizes of metallic wires 103 surrounding the first layer of metallic wires) surrounding the hollow buffer tube, wherein each of the third plurality of strength members has a third diameter, different than the first diameter and different than the second diameter (Fig. 1 shows this; additionally, see paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Consonni teachesThe optical cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the conductor is a layer of copper (see paragraph 0084) positioned directly adjacent the outer jacket (Fig. 1 shows this).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Consonni teachesThe optical cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the outer jacket is polyethylene (see paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 16: Consonni disclosesAn undersea optical cable (Fig. 1; see title) comprising: a hollow buffer tube (Fig. 1, buffer tube 101) having a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 1, optical fibers 105) therein, wherein the hollow buffer tube includes an inner buffer surface and an outer buffer surface (Fig. 1, the hollow buffer tube includes an inner buffer surface and an outer buffer surface), and wherein the outer buffer surface of the hollow buffer tube defines an outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube (Fig. 1, T1+D1+T2+D2+T3; paragraph 0066, the buffer tube disclosed to have a diameter preferably between 2.5 and 4.0 mm); a first plurality of layered strength members (Fig. 1, metallic wires 103, specifically the first layer that is directly adjacent to the hollow buffer tube) surrounding the hollow buffer tube; a conductor (Fig. 1, tubular metal sheath 107) surrounding the first plurality of layered strength members; and an outer jacket (Fig. 1, outer polymeric sheath 108) immediately surrounding the conductor, wherein the outer jacket includes an inner jacket surface and an outer jacket surface (see Fig. 1, the outer jacket includes an inner jacket surface and an outer jacket surface), wherein the outer jacket surface defines an outer diameter of the outer jacket (Fig. 1, the outer jacket surface inherently defines an outer diameter of the outer jacket; paragraph 0084 discloses an outer diameter of the metal sheath is 9mm, while paragraph 0085 discloses a protective sheath thickness preferably between 3 and 5 mm, corresponding to an outer diameter of the outer jacket between 15 and 19 mm)
While Consonni fails to disclose that the outer diameter of the outer jacket is equal to or less than five times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, Consonni’s teachings of preferred dimensions of the outer diameter of the buffer tube and the outer jacket result in an outer diameter of the outer jacket being ~3.75-7.6 times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube. Based on the Consonni disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the Consonni cable having an outer diameter of the outer jacket being anywhere in the range from 3.75-7.6 times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, including wherein the outer diameter of the outer jacket is equal to or less than five times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, to minimize the overall size of the fiber while maintaining the ability to carry and protect the optical fibers.
Consonni does not disclose that a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the optical cable wherein a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 17: Modified Consonni teaches the optical cable of claim 16, as applied above, wherein the outer jacket has a radial thickness (paragraph 0085 discloses a protective sheath thickness preferably between 3 and 5 mm). Considering the preferable range of outer diameters of the hollow buffer tube (paragraph 0066, the buffer tube disclosed to have a diameter preferably between 2.5 and 4.0 mm), the preferred ranges disclosed by Consonni overlap with the presently claimed range, i.e. that the radial thickness is less than the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent any evidence of (a) the criticality of the claimed range to produce new and unexpected results, and/or (b) the prior art teaching away from the claimed invention. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(III). In the present case, the prior art's range renders obvious the claimed range because the current invention fails to establish criticality of the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill would have expected the prior art to operate as disclosed when utilizing the claimed range. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18: Modified Consonni teaches the undersea optical cable of claim 16, as applied above. Consonni fails to teach that the plurality of optical fibers comprises between one hundred forty-two and two hundred thirty-two optical fibers. The claimed arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed for the purpose of increasing the number of channels of the cable, and thereby expanding the information capacity and processing capabilities of the optical cable. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20: Modified Consonni teaches The undersea optical cable of claim 16 (as applied above), further comprising a buffer gel within the hollow buffer tube (jelly-like material; see paragraphs 0076-0078).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consonni et al. (US 2002/0136513; hereinafter Consonni) in view of Spalding et al. (US 2022/0283397; hereinafter Spalding).
Regarding claim 10: Consonni disclosesAn optical cable (Fig. 1) comprising: a hollow buffer tube (Fig. 1, buffer tube 101) having a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 1, optical fibers 105) therein, wherein the hollow buffer tube includes an inner buffer surface and an outer buffer surface (Fig. 1, the hollow buffer tube includes an inner buffer surface and an outer buffer surface), and wherein the outer buffer surface of the hollow buffer tube defines an outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube (Fig. 1, T1+D1+T2+D2+T3; paragraph 0066, the buffer tube disclosed to have a diameter preferably between 2.5 and 4.0 mm); a first plurality of layered strength members (Fig. 1, metallic wires 103, specifically the first layer that is directly adjacent to the hollow buffer tube) surrounding the hollow buffer tube; a conductor (Fig. 1, tubular metal sheath 107) surrounding the first plurality of layered strength members; and an outer jacket (Fig. 1, outer polymeric sheath 108) surrounding the conductor, wherein the outer jacket includes an inner jacket surface and an outer jacket surface (see Fig. 1, the outer jacket includes an inner jacket surface and an outer jacket surface), wherein the outer jacket defines an outer diameter of the outer jacket (Fig. 1, the outer jacket inherently defines an outer diameter of the outer jacket; paragraph 0084 discloses an outer diameter of the metal sheath is 9mm, while paragraph 0085 discloses a protective sheath thickness preferably between 3 and 5 mm, corresponding to an outer diameter of the outer jacket between 15 and 19 mm)
While Consonni fails to disclose that the outer diameter of the outer jacket is equal to or less than five times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, Consonni’s teachings of preferred dimensions of the outer diameter of the buffer tube and the outer jacket result in an outer diameter of the outer jacket being ~3.75-7.6 times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube. Based on the Consonni disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the Consonni cable having an outer diameter of the outer jacket being anywhere in the range from 3.75-7.6 times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, including wherein the outer diameter of the outer jacket is equal to or less than five times the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube, to minimize the overall size of the fiber while maintaining the ability to carry and protect the optical fibers.
Consonni does not disclose that a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the optical cable wherein a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Consonni also fails to teach that the optical cable is included in an optical communications system comprising a set of terminals and a pair of unidirectional optical paths, wherein each unidirectional optical path of the pair of unidirectional optical paths comprises an optical fiber cable having the claimed arrangement. However, Spalding, also related to undersea optical cables (see title and paragraph 0002), does teach using optical fiber cables in an optical communications system comprising a set of terminals and a pair of unidirectional optical paths (see paragraph 0012), wherein each unidirectional optical path of the pair of unidirectional optical paths comprises an optical fiber cable having optical fibers (Fig. 3, optical fibers 335) in a hollow buffer tube (Fig. 3, tube 333), surrounded by strength members (Fig. 3, strength members 338, 339), a conductor (Fig. 3, conductor 340), and an outer jacket (Fig. 3, outer jacket 342). Since it was known to use fiber optic cables for optical communication systems including a set of terminals and a pair of unidirectional optical paths, wherein each unidirectional optical path comprises an optical fiber cable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the Consonni optical fiber cables in such a system, in order to facilitate high speed data transmission.
Consonni also does not disclose that a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the optical cable wherein a radial thickness of the conductor is greater than a maximum radial thickness of the hollow buffer tube, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Consonni teaches the optical cable of claim 10, as applied above, wherein the outer jacket has a radial thickness (paragraph 0085 discloses a protective sheath thickness preferably between 3 and 5 mm). Considering the preferable range of outer diameters of the hollow buffer tube (paragraph 0066, the buffer tube disclosed to have a diameter preferably between 2.5 and 4.0 mm), the preferred ranges disclosed by Consonni overlap with the presently claimed range, i.e. that the radial thickness is less than the outer diameter of the hollow buffer tube. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent any evidence of (a) the criticality of the claimed range to produce new and unexpected results, and/or (b) the prior art teaching away from the claimed invention. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2144.05 (I)(III). In the present case, the prior art's range renders obvious the claimed range because the current invention fails to establish criticality of the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill would have expected the prior art to operate as disclosed when utilizing the claimed range. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Consonni teaches the undersea optical cable of claim 10, as applied above. Consonni fails to teach that the plurality of optical fibers comprises between one hundred forty-two and two hundred thirty-two optical fibers. The claimed arrangements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed for the purpose of increasing the number of channels of the cable, and thereby expanding the information capacity and processing capabilities of the optical cable. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Consonni teaches The optical communication system of claim 10 (as applied above), further comprising a second plurality of layered strength members (Consonni Fig. 1, the larger of the two sizes of metallic wires 103 surrounding the first layer of metallic wires) surrounding the hollow buffer tube, wherein each of the first plurality of strength members has a first diameter, and wherein each of the second plurality of strength members has a second diameter, different than the first diameter (Consonni Fig. 1 shows this; additionally, see paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Consonni teaches The optical communication system of claim 13 (as applied above), further comprising a third plurality of layered strength members (Consonni Fig. 1, the smaller of the two sizes of metallic wires 103 surrounding the first layer of metallic wires) surrounding the hollow buffer tube, wherein each of the third plurality of strength members has a third diameter, different than the first diameter and different than the second diameter (Consonni Fig. 1 shows this; additionally, see paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 15: Modified Consonni teaches The optical communications system of claim 10 (as applied above), wherein the conductor is a layer of copper (see Consonni paragraph 0084) positioned directly adjacent the outer jacket (Consonni Fig. 1 shows this).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consonni et al. (US 2002/0136513; hereinafter Consonni) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (“Optical Fibers for High Fiber Count Submarine Cable Systems”, Sumitomo Electric Technical Review, April 2023; copy provided with this Office Action; hereinafter Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Consonni teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 1, as applied above. Consonni fails to teach that the plurality of optical fibers has a diameter of 200um. Yamaguchi, also related to undersea optical fiber cables (see title and abstract), teaches using optical fibers with a diameter of 200um in order to expand transmission capacity of undersea cables without significantly increasing the costs of submarine cables, due to the small area they occupy (see Yamaguchi page 32, left column, section 4-1). Since it was previously taught to use 200um diameter optical fibers in submarine cables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Consonni device by using optical fibers of this diameter, in order to utilize their potential for high transmission capacity.
Regarding claim 19: Modified Consonni teaches the optical cable of claim 16, as applied above. Consonni fails to teach that the plurality of optical fibers has a diameter of 200um. Yamaguchi, also related to undersea optical fiber cables (see title and abstract), teaches using optical fibers with a diameter of 200um in order to expand transmission capacity of undersea cables without significantly increasing the costs of submarine cables, due to the small area they occupy (see Yamaguchi page 32, left column, section 4-1). Since it was previously taught to use 200um diameter optical fibers in submarine cables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Consonni device by using optical fibers of this diameter, in order to utilize their potential for high transmission capacity.
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 Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights