DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,723,831 to Johnson et al.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a cable assembly, comprising: an optical fiber cable (10, Fig. 3), comprising: a cable jacket (first jacket 15) having a length (for any length of the cable), an inner surface (facing a core wrap 12), and an outer surface (facing outward), the inner surface defining a central bore (defined by the core wrap 12) extending along a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber cable (along the length of the cable) and the outer surface defining an outermost surface of the optical fiber cable (as illustrated in Fig. 3); at least one tensile strand (non-metallic strength members 16, col. 7, ll. 3-11) disposed between the inner surface and the outer surface of the cable jacket (Fig. 3), wherein the at least one tensile strand has a length that is substantially equal to or greater than the length of the cable jacket (twisted or stranded strength members are inherently greater in length than the jacket); at least one optical element (optical fibers 13) disposed within the central bore of the cable jacket.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson further teaches each of the at least one tensile strand comprises a glass (each strength member comprises a multiplicity of impregnated filaments, preferably borosilicate glass filaments impregnated with a urethane.)
Regarding claim 3, Johnson further teaches that the at least one tensile strand comprises three tensile strands (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson further teaches the optical element comprises a bare optical fiber or a tight-buffered optical fiber (col. 3, ll. 53-63).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0311941 A1 patent publication.
Regarding claim 1, the ‘941 publication discloses a cable assembly, comprising: an optical fiber cable (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a cable jacket (sheath 20) having a length (longitudinal direction), an inner surface (facing inward), and an outer surface (facing outward), the inner surface defining a central bore (about an optical fiber 1) extending along a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber cable and the outer surface defining an outermost surface of the optical fiber cable (as illustrated in Fig. 1); at least one tensile strand (reinforcing metal strands 3) disposed between the inner surface and the outer surface of the cable jacket (as illustrated in Fig. 1), wherein the at least one tensile strand has a length that is substantially equal to or greater than the length of the cable jacket (strands 3 are inherently greater in length than the jacket); at least one optical element (the optical fiber 1) disposed within the central bore of the cable jacket.
Regarding claim 4, the ‘941 publication further discloses the outer surface of the cable jacket defines a maximum cross-sectional dimension of the optical fiber cable and wherein the maximum cross-sectional dimension is 5 mm or less (“ diameters of these cables are of the order of several millimeters”, with a specific example of 0.8 mm).
Regarding claim 6, the ‘941 publication further discloses the at least one optical element is a single optical fiber and wherein the inner surface of the cable jacket contacts the single optical fiber (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the ‘941 publication further discloses each of the at least one tensile strand (3) comprises a maximum cross-sectional dimension of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm (each strand 3 has a diameter between 0.06 mm and 0.5 mm, and preferably between 0.08 mm and 0.2 mm).
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 2013/0034659 A1 by Hager et al.
Regarding claim 1, Hager teaches a cable assembly, comprising: an optical fiber cable (300), comprising: a cable jacket (HDPE sheath 306) having a length (longitudinal direction of the cable 300), an inner surface (facing inward), and an outer surface (facing outward), the inner surface defining a central bore (defined by an inner sheath 30) extending along a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber cable and the outer surface defining an outermost surface of the optical fiber cable (as illustrated in Figs. 5, 6); at least one tensile strand (low profile flexible reinforcement members 308 formed by a plurality of strand bundles 34) disposed between the inner surface and the outer surface of the cable jacket (as illustrated in Figs. 5, 6), wherein the at least one tensile strand has a length that is substantially equal to or greater than the length of the cable jacket (strands are inherently greater in length than the jacket); at least one optical element (optical fiber ribbon or bundle 304/312) disposed within the central bore of the cable jacket.
Regarding claims 7, 8, Hager further teaches each of the at least one tensile strand comprises a first cross-sectional dimension and a second cross-sectional dimension, wherein the first cross-sectional dimension is measured radially with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein the second cross-sectional dimension is measured transversely to the first cross-sectional dimension, and wherein the second cross-sectional dimension is larger than the first cross-sectional dimension, wherein the second cross-sectional dimension is at least 1.25x the first cross-sectional dimension (the members 308 have a rectangular shape elongated in a direction transverse to the radial direction of the cable 300, with a dimensional ratio of 4.4 (2.20/0.5)).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., the ‘941 publication, or Hager et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 2196834 A1 patent publication.
Regarding claim 9, the inventions of Johnson, the ‘941 publication, and Hager each features the optical fiber cable having the tensile strand but not a specific range for a linear density of the strand. The ‘834 publication also discloses an optical cable comprising a reinforcing strand (4) made from a 400 decitex (dtex) aramid filament, which could be made from a filament made of glass of any other mechanical reinforcing material having mechanical strength comparable to that of a 400 dtex aramid filament, which corresponds an acceptable range of deformation of an optical fiber (1) under an extraction force of 25 N. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations and determine an optimum or workable range of the density of the filament used to form the tensile strand in the inventions of Johnson, the ‘941 publication, and Hager, so as to ensure the deformation under tensile stress is within acceptable range and does not cause unwanted optical loss as suggested in the ‘835 publication.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., the ‘941 publication, or Hager et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,396,572 to Bradley et al.
Regarding claims 11, 12, the inventions of Johnson, the ‘941 publication, and Hager each features the optical fiber cable having the tensile strand but does not further specify how the cable is adapted for an optical connector. Bradley teaches a first optical fiber connector (100, Figs. 1-3) attached to an end of optical cable (30) having filamentary strength members (33), wherein the first connector comprises: a connector housing (150) having a first end and a second end (with first and second cavities 151, 152), the first end configured to be inserted into (via a fiber ferrule 110) an optical receptacle (that receives optical connectors) and the second end comprising a sleeve (defining the second cavity 152); a crimp band (160) having a first ring section (163) and a second ring section (164); wherein the first ring section engages the sleeve of the connector housing (at ribs 156) and the second ring section engages (via ribs 161) the optical fiber cable; and wherein the at least one optical element (optical fiber 21) extends through the connector housing from the first end to the second end (as illustrated in Fig. 3), and wherein the cable jacket having the at least one tensile strand embedded therein is compressed between the second ring section (164) of the crimp band and a crimp ring (a sheath tube 180), as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical cable inventions of Johnson et al., the ‘941 publication, or Hager et al., by terminating the cables with the optical connector, in part by using the crimp sleeve (160) and the sheath tube (180), which combine to protect the optical fibers within the cable from axial forces applied to the optical cable during crimping operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP RE32436 discloses using a cable reinforcement of elastic modulus of at least 10,000,000 psi.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights