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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohannon et al. (US Patent # 4,557,560) in view of Xu et al. (WIPO Publication # WO2022041526A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bohannon discloses an optical cable (i.e. lightguide fiber cable 20) comprising:
a hollow buffer tube (i.e. heat barrier layer 32) having a plurality of optical fibers (i.e. plurality of lightguide fibers 26) therein;
a first plurality of layered strength members (i.e. plurality of strength members 33) and a second plurality of layered strength members (i.e. plurality of strength wires 36) surrounding the hollow buffer tube;
a conductor (i.e. corrugated inner shield 51 & corrugated outer shield 60) surrounding the second plurality of layered strength members, wherein the conductor comprises a first metal layer (i.e. corrugated inner shield 51) surrounded by a second metal layer (i.e. corrugated outer shield 60), and wherein the first metal layer is an aluminum tape, wherein the aluminum tape is helically or longitudinally wrapped around the second plurality of layered strength members; and
an outer insulating jacket (i.e. jacket 70) surrounding the conductor (Fig. 1, 2, 4, & 7; Abstract; Column 4, line 13- Column 5, line 20; Column 5, line 38- Column 6, line 64; Column 7, line 16- Column 8, line 14; Column 10, line 11-31; Claim 6). Copper tape 106 which forms shield 51 may be aluminum instead.
Bohannon does not explicitly disclose that the second metal layer is copper and the copper is a copper layer longitudinally wrapped along an exterior of the aluminum tape or welded over the aluminum tape.
Xu teaches that the second metal layer (i.e. conductive strip of resistance reduction layer 3) is copper and the copper is a copper layer longitudinally wrapped along an exterior of the aluminum tape or welded over the aluminum tape (Fig. 1-3; Paragraphs 0006-0007, 0013, 0021-0026).
Xu teaches that it is well known in the art of submarine to use copper as the material of an additional layer. Bohannon also mentions that copper can be used instead of aluminum. Therefore, said material is considered useful in Bohannon. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use copper as the material for the second metal layer of Bohannon, as taught by Xu, in order to reduce the DC current resistance. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, the first metal layer is aluminum and not welded but wrapped as disclosed by Bohannon (Fig. 7; Column 5, line 3-4; Column 10, line 11-22) while the second metal layer is copper and welded as taught by Xu (Paragraph 0022, 0027-0028) or wrapped as taught by Bohannon (Fig. 2; Column 6, line 14-45).
Claim 9 includes the limitations of claim 1 (an optical communication system using the optical cable) and is analyzed as such as with respect to that claim. The cable of Bohannon is a communications cable which would inherently be connected between a set of local power feed equipment stations. Claim 17 includes the limitations of claim 1 (the method of forming an optical cable) and is analyzed as such as with respect to that claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Bohannon discloses that the conductor (i.e. corrugated outer shield 60) is directly adjacent the outer jacket (i.e. jacket 70) (Fig. 4).
Claim 11 includes the limitations of claims 2 & 3 (an optical communication system using the optical cable) and is analyzed as such as with respect to those claims. The second plurality of layered strength members is disclosed by Bohannon as plurality of strength members 33.
Regarding Claim 8, Bohannon discloses that a first radial thickness of the first metal layer is greater than a second radial thickness of the second metal layer (Claim 6).
Claim 16 includes the limitations of claim 8 (an optical communication system using the optical cable) and is analyzed as such as with respect to that claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Bohannon in view of Xu discloses that first metal layer is not welded (Bohannon: Fig. 7; Column 5, line 3-4; Column 10, line 11-22)
Claims 2 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohannon et al. (US Patent # 4,557,560) in view of Xu et al. (WIPO Publication # WO2022041526A1), as applied to claims 1 & 9, and in further view of Gu et al. (WIPO Publication # WO2019114375A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Bohannon does not explicitly disclose that 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 and third diameter, different than the first diameter.
Gu teaches that wherein each of the first plurality of strength members (i.e. inner layer of armor layer 20) has a first diameter, and wherein each of the second plurality of strength members (i.e. outer layer of armor layer 20) has a second and third diameter, different than the first diameter (Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0028 & 0031-0032).
Gu teaches that it is well known in the art of strength members for submarine cables to use multiple layers of said strength members and use different diameters according to the water depths to which the cable will be subjected. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide different diameters in the different layers of strength members of Bohannon, as taught by Gu, in order to adapt and design the cable for different water depths. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 includes the limitations of claim 2 (an optical communication system using the optical cable) and is analyzed as such as with respect to that claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant continues to argue that substituting the stainless-steel outer shield layer of Bohannon with the copper outer layer of Xu would render the cable of Bohannon unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bohannon already discloses that both aluminum and copper are useful materials to be used as shields. As the Applicant states in the remarks, Xu teaches a single or double layer of copper. Therefore, one skilled in the art could combine the teachings of both references to arrive at a double layer inner shield in which one layer is copper and the other is aluminum as claimed. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the Applicant argues that the Examiner posits replacing the corrugated outer shield of Bohannon with the flat strip of copper, but the Examiner does not state this in the rejection and merely posits that a copper material be used instead of steel and that copper material can still be corrugated. The combination of the references allows for this. The Applicant further states that because the Examiner states above that Bohannon already discloses that both aluminum and copper are useful materials to be used as shields, then the Xu reference is not needed to designate which layer is copper and which is aluminum. However, it is clear from the rejection that Xu is being used precisely to provide motivation for the outer layer being made of copper since Bohannon does not explicitly disclose the outer layer being made of copper even if the Bohannon reference teaches the merits or the usefulness of copper as a shield material. This is why the rejection is based on the combination of the references and not the references individually.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights