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.
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 19 and 20 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein each of the plurality of optical fibers is equal to or greater than 200um”. It is unclear what is equal to or greater than 200um. For the purpose of examination, this is understood to refer to the diameter of each of the plurality of optical fiber cables, as claimed in claim 5.
Claims 19 and 20 each recite the limitation "The optical cable of claim 16" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites “An undersea optical cable”. Claims 19 and 20 should be amended accordingly.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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, as best understood: 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
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