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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June s, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed June 2, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on June 23, 2026 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
a first groove having a cross-section in the shape of an inverted trapezoid (see claim 26);
a first groove having a cross-section in the shape of a rectangle (see claim 26);
a first groove having a cross-section in the shape of a square (see claim 26);
the first auxiliary optical fiber comprising a first multi-core optical fiber (see claim 28); and
the second auxiliary optical fiber comprising a second multi-core optical fiber (see claim 28)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph
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, 3-10, 21-29, and 32-37 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitations “the first distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber and the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber” (see lines 23-24 of claim 1).
The diameter of the main optical fiber is only discussed in paragraphs 56 and 66 of the present application with reference to Figures 2 and 4. Figures 2 and 4, and paragraphs 54-56 and 63-66 are provided below for discussion (emphasis added by examiner).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0054] Referring to FIG. 2, at least two strength members 300 are spaced apart on an outer periphery of the main optical fiber 200. The strength members 300 are arranged on the outer periphery of the main optical fiber 200, to improve the tensile capacity of the entire optical cable and prevent the main optical fiber 200 from being damaged under an external force.
[0055] For example, as shown in FIG. 2, two strength members 300 may be spaced apart on the outer periphery of the main optical fiber 200, and the two strength members 300 may be respectively arranged on two sides of the main optical fiber 200 along a first radial direction (refer to a direction x shown in FIG. 2), to ensure that the two strength members 300 both protect a structure of the main optical fiber 200.
[0056] It should be noted that the first radial direction, that is, the direction x, is an extension direction of a first diameter of the main optical fiber 200. The first diameter may be a diameter in any direction of the main optical fiber 200. This example embodiment is described in detail by using an example in which a horizontal direction is used as the first radial direction, that is, the direction x. It should be emphasized herein that in this example embodiment, an example in which the main optical fiber 200 is a single-core optical fiber is used for structure description, and the radial direction of the main optical fiber 200 refers to a radial direction of the single-core optical fiber. When the main optical fiber 200 is a multi-core optical fiber, the radial direction of the main optical fiber 200 refers to a radial direction of a cylindrical structure jointly formed by the multi-core optical fiber.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0063] Still referring to FIG. 4, because the main optical fiber 200 and the strength members 300 located on two sides of the main optical fiber 200 occupy specific space in the first radial direction, that is, the direction x, the plurality of strength members 300 located on the same side of the main optical fiber 200 are arranged along the first direction, that is, the direction a, at a specific angle to the first radial direction, that is, the direction x, to save space occupied by the plurality of strength members 300 located on the same side of the main optical fiber 200 in the first radial direction, that is, the direction x. In this way, the structure of the optical cable in this embodiment of this application is more compact, and space occupied by laying the optical cable is saved. The optical cable is better adapted to use in an indoor communication scenario, and is more convenient to install.
[0064] In some embodiments, an arrangement direction of the two strength members 300 on the same side of the main optical fiber 200 may be perpendicular to the first radial direction, that is, the direction x. In other words, the two strength members 300 on the same side of the main optical fiber 200 may be arranged along the first direction, that is, the direction a, that is perpendicular to the first radial direction, that is, the direction x. This further saves space occupied by the strength members 300 in the optical cable along the first radial direction, that is, the direction x, reduces a size of the optical cable in the first radial direction, that is, the direction x, and further improves the structural compactness of the optical cable.
[0065] For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the two strength members 300 on the same side of the main optical fiber 200 are arranged along a direction parallel to a second radial direction (a direction y shown in FIG. 4) of the main optical fiber 200. For example, the two strength members 300 on the same side are respectively located on an upper side and a lower side of an axial cross-section of the main optical fiber 200 along the first radial direction.
[0066] It should be noted that the second radial direction, that is, the direction y, is an extension direction of a second diameter of the main optical fiber 200, and the second diameter may be a diameter of the main optical fiber 200 in a direction perpendicular to the first radial direction. This embodiment of this application is described in detail by using an example in which a vertical direction is used as the second radial direction, that is, the direction y.
Figure 2 illustrates a cable having outer sheath (100), strength members (300), and main optical fiber (200). Figure 2 does not annotate or label the diameter of the main optical fiber (200). Figure 2 does not label or annotate the spacing of the strength members (300) from the main optical fiber (200). No specific values are disclosed in Figure 2 for the diameter of the main optical fiber or the spacing of the strength members. There is no indication that Figure 2 is of scale.
Figure 2 does disclose that strength members (300) are spaced along the x-axis direction from a periphery of the main optical fiber (200).
Paragraph 54 discloses that the strength members (300) are spaced apart on an outer periphery of the main optical fiber (200).
Paragraph 55 states that the strength members are spaced apart on the outer periphery of the main optical fiber and may be arranged on two side of the main optical fiber along the x direction, which is a first radial direction of the main optical fiber.
Paragraph 56 discloses that the x direction (first radiation direction) is an extension direction of a first diameter of the main optical fiber (200) and that the first diameter may be in any direction of the main optical fiber.
None of these paragraphs discuss the spacing of the strength members (300) with respect to the diameter of the main optical fiber (200). There are no ranges of values disclosed. There is no indication that the spacing of the strength members (300) is at all related to a diameter of the main optical fiber (200).
Therefore, while Figure 2 and paragraphs 54-56 provide support for strength members (300) positioned on opposing sides of the main optical fiber (200) and spaced in the radial direction (x direction) from a periphery of the main optical fiber, they do not disclose, teach, suggest, or reference in any way that there is a relationship between the spacing of the strength members and the width of the main optical fiber.
Similar to Figure 2, Figure 4 illustrates a cable having outer sheath (100), strength members (300), and main optical fiber (200). Figure 4 does not annotate or label the diameter of the main optical fiber (200). Figure 4 does not label or annotate the spacing of the strength members (300) from the main optical fiber (200). No specific values are disclosed in Figure 4 for the diameter of the main optical fiber or the spacing of the strength members. There is no indication that Figure 4 is of scale.
Figure 4 does disclose that strength members (300) are spaced along the x-axis direction from a periphery of the main optical fiber (200).
Paragraph 63 discloses that strength member (300) are located on two sides of the main optical fiber (200) in a first radial direction (x-direction).
Paragraph 64 teaches that the strength members 9300) may be arranged along a first direction (direction a) that is perpendicular to the x direction.
Paragraph 65 states that the strength members (300) may be arranged along a direction parallel to a second radiation direction (direction y).
Paragraph 66 teaches that the second radiation direction (y direction) is an extension direction of a second diameter of the main optical fiber (200) and that the second diameter may be in a direction perpendicular to the first radial direction.
None of these paragraphs discuss the spacing of the strength members (300) with respect to the diameter of the main optical fiber (200). There are no ranges of values disclosed. There is no indication that the spacing of the strength members (300) is at all related to a diameter of the main optical fiber (200).
The examiner cannot find any disclosure in the originally filed application related to a relationship between a spacing of the strength members (auxiliary optical fibers) and the diameter of the main optical fiber. What advantages or unexpected results occur with a spacing that is greater than a diameter of the main optical fiber? Why is this not discussed in the application?
Therefore, there is no support in the originally filed application, including the originally filed specification, claims, abstract, and/or drawings for the newly recited limitations that “the first distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber and the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber” (in lines 23-24 of claim 1.
Claims 3-10, 21-29, and 32-37 inherently contain the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
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 3, 4 and 9 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 3; the claim recites the limitations (emphasis added) “wherein the first auxiliary optical fiber and the third auxiliary optical fiber are arranged along a second direction different from the first direction, and there is an angle between the second direction and a fifth radial direction extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber between the first radial direction and the third radial direction.”
There is no disclosure related to “an angle between the second direction and a fifth radial direction extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber between the first radial direction and the third radial direction.” Figure 4 discloses first, second, third and fourth auxiliary optical fibers (300) extending in an unlabeled, which will be referred to as a z direction by the examiner, since Applicant has labeled x and y directions corresponding to x and y axis of a Cartesian Coordinate System, which is generally referred to as x-y-x coordinates. The z direction extends into and out of the paper that the figures are drawn on. All of the fibers extend in one single direction, the z direction. There are no different directions taught in the specification.
Claim 3 depends from claim 35, which depends from claim 1.
With reference to annotated Figure 4 below, claim 1, 35, and 3 require:
the first auxiliary optical fiber (1st fiber, 300) is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber (200) by a first distance in a first radial direction (1st radial direction) extending away from the first side (1st side; the first side is considered to be everything to the left of the y-axis) of the main optical fiber (lines 12-14 of claim 1); and
the second auxiliary optical fiber (2nd fiber, 300) is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber (200) by a second distance in a second radiation direction (2nd radial direction) extending away from the second side (2nd side; the second side is considered to be everything to the right of the y-axis) of the main optical fiber (lines 15-17 of claim 1);
the third auxiliary optical fiber (3rd fiber, 300) is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber (200) by a third distance in a third radial direction (3rd radial direction) extending away from the first side (first side) of the main optical fiber (lines 9-11 of claim 35);
the fourth auxiliary optical fiber (4th fiber, 300) is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber (200) by a fourth distance in a fourth radial direction (4th radial direction) extending away from the second side of the main optical fiber (lines 12-14 of claim 35); and
wherein the first auxiliary optical fiber (1st fiber, 300) and the second auxiliary optical fiber (2nd fiber, 300) are arranged along a second direction (y-direction? Or x-direction?) different from the first direction (z-direction which is along the extension axis of the fibers 200, 300), and
there is an angle between the second direction (y-direction or x-direction? and a fifth radial direction (5th radial direction) extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber between the first radial direction (1st radial direction) and the third radial direction (3rd radial direction).
PNG
media_image3.png
579
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The first and third auxiliary fibers (1st fiber and 3rd fiber) are arranged on the first side (1st side) along both the x and y directions. Therefore, it’s impossible to tell what the 5th radial direction is and what angle Applicant is defining? Furthermore, the relevance of the fifth radiation direction and claimed angle is unclear since it appears to be arbitrary and not to reflect the orientation of any particular structure. The fifth radial direction is not discussed in the disclosure or labeled in the Figures.
The examiner cannot speculate about what Applicant is attempting to claim. The claim appears generally narrative and indefinite.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 II. Since it’s unclear how a third auxiliary fiber is arranged along a sixth direction different from the first direction, and no reasonable interpretation of this limitation is apparent, claim 3, and claims 4 and 9, which depend from claim 3, have not been further treated with respect to prior art. Please note that this is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 4 and 9; dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims.
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, 5, 10, 21-29, 32-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN 204666908 U; hereafter Shen) in view of Honma et al. (JP 2014-109751 A; hereafter Honma).
Regarding claims 1, 21-22, 24-27, and 33; Shen discloses an optical cable (see Figure 2), comprising:
an outer sheath (outer protective layer 4);
a main optical fiber (optical fibre 1); and
a first strength member (reinforcement 3) on a first side of the main optical fiber (1); and
a second strength member (reinforcement 3) on a second side of the main optical fiber (1) opposite the first side of the main optical fiber (see Figure 2),
wherein
the main optical fiber (1), the first strength member (3), and the second strength member (3) are inside the outer sheath (4),
the main optical fiber (1) extends in a first direction,
the first strength member (3) extends in the first direction (fiber 1 and strength members 3 extend in the same direction, wherein the longitudinal axis of fiber 1 and strength members 3 are parallel),
the second strength member (3) extends in the first direction (fiber 1 and strength members 3 extend in the same direction, wherein the longitudinal axis of fiber 1 and strength members 3 are parallel),
the first strength member (3) is spaced apart from an outer periphery of the main optical fiber (1) by a first distance in a first radial direction extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber (see Figure 2),
the second strength member (3) is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber (1) by a second distance in a second radial direction extending away from the second side of the main optical fiber (see Figure 2),
the first strength member (3), the second strength member (3), and the main optical fiber (1) are embedded in the outer sheath (4);
wherein the outer sheath (external cover layer, 4) is made of transparent materials (see the last paragraph in the background section of the description of Shen);
wherein the outer sheath (outer protective layer) is made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (see the background section of Shen);
wherein the first strength member (3) and the second strength member (3) are centrosymmetric with respect to the main optical fiber (1; see Figure 2);
wherein a first groove (see Figure 2 of Shen) is formed in the outer sheath (4; a v-groove is formed in the top surface of the outer sheath in Figure 2 of Shen), and the first groove extends from a first end of the outer sheath (4) to a second end of the outer sheath (4) opposite to the first end in the first direction (see Figure 2 of Shen);
wherein a shape of a cross-section of the first groove through the third radiation direction extending away from the main optical fiber (1) is an inverted trapezoid, a rectangle, a square, or a triangle (see Figure 2 of Shen);
wherein
the shape of the cross-section of the first groove (see Figure 2 of Shen) through the third radial direction is triangular (the V-shaped groove has a triangular cross-section),
an apex of the triangle (point of the V-shape) is located at a bottom of the first groove (see Figure 2 of Shen), and
the bottom of the first groove is a first point on an exterior surface of the outer sheath (4) within the first groove closest to the main optical fiber (1) and opposite to an opening of the first groove defined by the exterior surface of the outer sheath (see Figure 2 of Shen);
wherein a shape of a radial cross-section of the outer sheath (4) is a square or a rectangle (see Figure 2 of Shen).
Shen illustrates the first and second strength members (3) at distances from the optical fiber (1; see Figure 2 of Shen), but does not explicitly disclose that the distances are greater than the diameter of the fiber (1). The examiner notes that the strength members (3) must inherently be at a distances less than, equal to, or greater than a diameter of the optical fiber (1), and a person of ordinary skill in the art, given these limited options with no particular suggestion to choose one over the other, would have found it obvious to try any of the three options, including providing the first strength member spaced apart from an outer periphery of the main optical fiber (1) by a first distance that is greater than a width of the main optical fiber and providing the second strength member spaced apart from an outer periphery of the main optical fiber 91) by a second distance that is greater than a width of the main optical fiber for the purpose of providing sufficient structural integrity to the cable and using any desired optical fiber, including a fiber having a smaller diameter, since this arrangement is one of the only three possible arrangements and could have been selected with a reasonable expectation of success as it would not appear to present in novel or unexpected advantages and is likely not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Shen does not disclose that the first and second strength members are auxiliary optical fibers.
Honma teaches that strength members (20) provided in an optical cable (1) may be formed of auxiliary optical fibers (paragraph 48; see the accompanying machine translation: “As the glass body 20, for example, a general-purpose optical fiber having a glass diameter of 125 μm may be used. In this case, the optical fiber is not used for communication but used as a tensile body (functions)”) for the purpose of providing a transparent cable while maintaining durability against tension (see the abstract).
Thus, 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 strength members (3) of Shen from auxiliary optical fibers, therefore providing a first auxiliary optical fiber as the first strength member and a second auxiliary optical fiber as the second strength member, for the purpose of providing a transparent cable while maintaining durability against tension, since this is an alternative way to form tension members as suggested by the teachings of Honma, and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5; Shen and Honma teach and/or suggest the optical cable according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the optical cable (see Figure 2 of Shen) further comprises:
a tight sleeve (tight sleeve layer 2), and
wherein the tight sleeve (2) is sleeved on an outer surface of the main optical fiber (1); and,
the outer sheath (4) and the tight sleeve (2) are both made of transparent materials (transparent material; see the abstract), and
the outer sheath (4) and the tight sleeve (2) both comprise one or more of polyvinyl chloride (PVC; see paragraphs 7 and 21 of Shen), nylon, and thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer rubber (TPU; see paragraph 20 of Shen).
Regarding claim 10; Shen and Honma teach and/or suggest the optical cable according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein there is a width of the outer sheath (4) in the first radial direction of the main optical fiber (1; see Figure 2), and a height of the outer sheath (4) in a third radial direction extending away from the main optical fiber (1; see Figure 2), and the first radial direction and is perpendicular to the third radial direction (see Figure 2), but fails to disclose specific values for the width and height.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the width and the height of the outer sheath (4) for the purpose of providing a cable with a desirable footprint for the intended use while maintaining a suitable flexibility for installation purposes and sufficiently protecting the optical fiber and strength members there, including providing a width ranging from 1.5 mm to 2.0 mm and a height ranging from 1.2 mm to 1.9 mm, since these values would not appear to produce and any novel or unexpected results and the lack of disclosure related to specific values of the prior art suggests a lack of criticality, 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 23; the examiner takes Official notice that nylon and thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer rubber (TPU) are known to be used to form sheaths in the optical cable art. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any routinely used sheathing material to form the outer sheath (4) in the cable of Shen, including one or more of nylon, or thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer rubber (TPU), since 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 28; Shen and Honma teach and/or suggest the optical cable according to claim 1, but do not state that the first auxiliary optical fiber comprises a first single-core optical fiber, a first multi-core optical fiber, a first single-mode optical fiber or a first multi-mode optical fiber, and that the second auxiliary optical fiber comprises a second single-core optical fiber, a second multi- core optical fiber, a second single-mode optical fiber or a second multi-mode optical fiber. Honma does teach that the strength members may be optical fibers. Optical fibers are necessarily either single-core or multi-core fibers, and are also necessarily either single-mode or multi-mode optical fibers, as these are the only possibilities that exist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any desired optical fibers as the first and second auxiliary optical fibers to form the strength members, including single-core optical fibers, multi-core optical fibers, single-mode optical fibers, and/or multi-mode optical fibers for the purpose of choosing standard, known optical fibers strength members suitable for an intended use in an intended environment, since no novel or unexpected advantages would appear to occur.
Regarding claim 29; before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any standard type of optical fiber as the auxiliary optical fiber strength members based on the teachings of Shen and Honma as discussed above, including OM2, OM3, and/or OM4 multimode optical fibers, since these are known alternative types of optical fibers and it appears the invention would perform equally well regardless with no novel or unexpected results occurring from the selection of any standard optical fiber.
Regarding claims 32 and 36; The examiner takes Official notice that fire-retardant materials are known to be used to form sleeves, coatings, coverings, sheaths, and/or jackets on optical cables. 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 outer sheath (4) and/or the tight sleeve (2) of Shen from fire-retardant materials for the purpose of forming a cable that will resist damage for an intended use, since outer sheaths are routinely formed of fire-retardant material in the art, since 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 34; Shen and Honma teach and/or suggest the cable according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the strength members are formed of auxiliary optical fibers, and optical fibers are inherently, but definition, configured to transmit optical signals, thus providing the first auxiliary optical fiber and the second auxiliary optical fiber configured to transmit optical signals.
Claims 6-8, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN 204666908 U; hereafter Shen) in view of Honma et al. (JP 2014-109751 A; hereafter Honma), and in further view of Ludl et al. (EP 1 126 297 A1; hereafter Ludl).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 37; Shen and Honma teach and/or suggest the optical cable according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein an outer surface of the outer sheath (4) has a planar portion (see Figure 2; the top, bottom, and side of the outer sheath 4 are planar), but fails to disclose that the optical cable (see Figure 2) further comprises:
an adhesive layer, and
an anti-adhesive layer;
wherein the adhesive layer is on a surface of the outer sheath, and the anti-adhesive layer is adhered to a surface of the adhesive layer;
wherein the adhesive layer is on the planar portion;
wherein the adhesive layer and the outer sheath are integrally formed as a continuous structure.
Ludl teaches that a cable (see Figure 2) having a planar surface may have an adhesive layer (9) and an anti-adhesive layer (10) provided for installation purposes, wherein the adhesive layer (9) is on a surface of the outer sheath, and the anti-adhesive layer (10) is adhered to a surface of the adhesive layer (9), wherein the adhesive layer (9) is on the planar portion of the cable sheath (3; see Figure 2), and wherein the adhesive layer and the outer sheath are integrally formed as a continuous structure (see Figure 2 of Ludl).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide an adhesive layer, and an anti-adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is on a surface of the outer sheath, and the anti-adhesive layer is adhered to a surface of the adhesive layer, and wherein the adhesive layer is on the planar portion of the sheath (4) of the cable of Shen, and wherein the adhesive layer and the outer sheath are integrally formed as a continuous structure for the purpose of providing an easy method of installation as suggested by the teachings of Ludl.
Regarding claim 8; Shen, Honma, and Ludl teach and/or suggest the optical cable according to claim 6, wherein the adhesive layer is attached to the outer sheath (see the rejection of claim 6 above), but fail to specify that the adhesive layer is a transparent double-sided tape. The examiner takes Official notice that it’s known to provide double-sides tape to cables for the of fixing them to a wall surface. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a double-sided tape to form the adhesive and anti-adhesive layer for attaching the cable to a desired surface, since this is elementary in the art and would not appear to produce any novel or unexpected results.
Claims 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN 204666908 U; hereafter Shen) in view of Honma et al. (JP 2014-109751 A; hereafter Honma), and further in view of Okada et al. (JP 2005-107256 A; hereafter Okada).
Regarding claim 35; Shen and Honma teach and/or suggest the optical cable according to claim 1, as discussed above, but do not disclose that the cable further comprising:
a third auxiliary optical fiber on the first side of the main optical fiber; and
a fourth auxiliary optical fiber on the second side of the main optical fiber,
wherein
the third auxiliary optical fiber extends in the first direction,
the fourth auxiliary optical fiber extends in the first direction,
the third auxiliary optical fiber is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a third distance in a third radial direction extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber, and
the fourth auxiliary optical fiber is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a fourth distance in a fourth radial direction extending away from the second side of the main optical fiber.
Okada discloses alternative strength member configurations (see Figures 5 and 6) wherein at least two strength members (20) are among a plurality of strength members (20) included in an optical cable (30A, 30B), and at least two of the plurality of strength members (20) are on a same side of a main optical fiber (11) extending along a first direction, such that there are first, second, third, and fourth strength members spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fibers by first, second, third and fourth distances in first, second, third, and fourth radial directions, respectively.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the auxiliary optical fiber strength members in alternative known prior art configurations, including providing a third auxiliary optical fiber extending direction parallel to the main optical fiber, a fourth extending parallel to the main optical fiber, the third auxiliary optical fiber spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a third distance in a third radial direction extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber, and the fourth auxiliary optical fiber spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a fourth distance in a fourth radial direction extending away from the second side of the main optical fiber, for the purpose of providing sufficient tensile strength to the resulting optical fiber cable for its intended use, since one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods in the known alternative configuration with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objection to the Drawings
Applicants respectfully traverse the drawing objections, arguing that 37 CFR 1.83(a) has been applied too broadly. The relevant inquiry is whether additional drawings are necessary for understanding the subject matter sought to be patented, not whether every expressly described alternative implementation must be redundantly illustrated in a separate drawing.
The examiner disagrees.
Applicant states that the existing drawings and written description already provide the structural context needed to understand the claimed alternatives. Applicant states that claim 26 recites that "a shape of a cross-section of the first groove through a third radial direction extending away from the main optical fiber is an inverted trapezoid, a rectangle, a square, or a triangle." FIG. 7 of the originally filed drawings depicts the triangular embodiment, which satisfies the drawing requirement because the claim does not require all alternatives to be depicted simultaneously.
Applicant’s example of claim 26 and the embodiment of Figure 7 is a good example of the reason the elements must be illustrated.
Figure 7 has a similar arrangement to Figure 4, which has been annotated above. Annotated Figure 4 and Figure 7 are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
579
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
255
245
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The specification does not discuss a third radial direction. A third radial direction is defined in claims 3 and 35 (claim 3 depends from claim 35, which depends from claim 1) by stating that the third auxiliary fiber is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a third distance in a third radial direction. As can be seen in annotated claim 4, the third radial direction (3rd radial direction) is labeled meeting this definition.
Claim 26 then requires that a first groove through a third radial direction extends away from the main optical fiber.
Figure 7 shows grooves 110 and 120, but neither of these grooves extend in the same third radial direction defined by claims 3 and 35, therefore suggesting it’s a different third radial direction. Since the third radial direction is not labeled and the shapes are not illustrated in the Figures, and Applicant is referring to the third radial direction as different directions in different claims, the subject matter is not clearly and concisely disclosed. Furthermore, the orientations of the cross-sectional shapes is not defined with respect to any consistent reference points. The consequence is that the claim may broadly read on configurations that are unintended and/or that lack support.
Since terms are not used to consistently refer to the same direction in the claims, specifically the “third radial direction” which refers to essentially two different radial directions in claims 3 and 26, drawings are necessary for every feature.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant states that the Office rejected claims 1, 3-10 and 21-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
Claim 1 recites "the first distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber" and "the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber."
The Office asserted that there is no support in the originally filed application for the claimed relationship between the spacing of the auxiliary optical fibers and the width of the main optical fiber. Applicants respectfully submit that, while the specification does not explicitly state this spacing-to-width relationship in words, the originally filed drawings consistently depict this structural relationship. As described in the specification, "at least two strength members 300 are spaced apart on an outer periphery of the main optical fiber 200." (see original specification, para. [0054]).
An annotated version of FIG. 2 of the present application is provided below for the Examiner's convenience.
PNG
media_image5.png
316
338
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that this annotated version of Figure 2, upon which Applicant is basing their arguments, was not present in the application as originally filed.
There is no discussion in the originally filed patent application of the distance the strength members (auxiliary optical fibers) are spaced from the periphery of the main optical fiber with respect to the diameter of the main optical fiber. The drawings and specification simply disclose that the auxiliary optical fibers are spaced in a radial direction from the periphery of the main optical fiber.
Neither the width of the main fiber, nor the distance between the main fiber and the auxiliary fiber was labeled in the drawings, and since there was not disclosure in the specification about a relationship between the two values, there was absolutely no indication in the originally filed application that such a relationship was relevant or contemplated at the time of filing.
Applicant further explains that annotated FIG. 2 depicts the strength members 300 positioned at distances d1 from the main optical fiber 200 that are visibly greater than the width w1 of the main optical fiber 200.
As can be clearly seen from the figure above, the distance d1 is significantly greater than that of width w1, meaning the distance between the reinforcing member 300 and the main optical fiber 200 is greater than the width of the main optical fiber 200.
There is no discussion in the originally filed patent application of the distance the strength members (auxiliary optical fibers) are spaced from the periphery of the main optical fiber with respect to the diameter of the main optical fiber. The drawings and specification simply disclose that the auxiliary optical fibers are spaced in a radial direction from the periphery of the main optical fiber.
With respect to MPEP § 2125, this section shows that it has been established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes, and ratios, if the specification is completely silent on the issue. This section of the MPEP is directed to the application of Drawings as prior art, but is relevant to the present situation in that it establishes the offices position on how scale of drawings may be relied upon.
For example, if the publication of the present application were to be used as a prior art reference against a future application, the office is clear that Figure 2 would not provide support for the teaching that the strength members (300 in Figure 2 of the present application) are spaced apart from the main optical fiber (200) by a width greater than a width of the main fiber (300) because the disclosure does not indicate that Figure 2 is to scale and does not provide additional discussion with respect to the limitations in question. The width of the main fiber and the spacing of the strength members are not labeled or annotated in Figure 2. There is no indication that Figure 2 was intended to illustrate or support the claimed relationship.
Thus, it is clear that the office’s interpretation is that Figure 2 does not provide the necessary support.
Applicant further explains that the specification describes that "the main optical fiber 200 is arranged at a central position of the outer sheath 100" with "strength members 300" distributed "around a central axis of the main optical fiber 200 and on an outer periphery of the main optical fiber 200." (see original specification, para. [0060]).
The text of paragraph 60 does not indicate that there is a critical relationship between a width of the main optical fiber and a distance between the main optical fiber and the auxiliary optical fiber.
Applicant also states that FIG. 4 likewise depicts the strength members 300 spaced from the main optical fiber 200 at distances that are visibly greater than the width of the main optical fiber. An annotated version of FIG. 4 of the present application is provided below for the Examiner's convenience.
PNG
media_image6.png
307
335
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that this annotated version of Figure 4, upon which Applicant is basing their arguments, was not present in the application as originally filed.
Figure 4 does not indicate that the width of the main optical fiber or the distance between the main optical fiber and the auxiliary optical fiber are related. The values are not labeled in the Figure, suggesting a lack of criticality, since they were also not discussed in the specification. And there is no indication within the application, as originally filed, that the drawings are to scale.
Applicant states that FIGS. 6 and 7 of the originally filed application consistently depict this same qualitative structural relationship, where the auxiliary optical fibers are positioned at distances from the main optical fiber that visibly exceed the fiber's width.
The examiner notes that Figures 6 and 7 did not point to or label a width of a main fiber or a distance between the auxiliary fiber and the main fiber in relation to a width thereof in the application as originally filed.
Applicant also explains that, the specification discusses the spatial arrangement of the strength members relative to the main optical fiber in terms that are consistent with the claimed relationship. Paragraph [0054] states that "at least two strength members 300 are spaced apart on an outer periphery of the main optical fiber 200."
The text of paragraph 54 does not indicate that there is a critical relationship between a width of the main optical fiber and a distance between the main optical fiber and the auxiliary optical fiber.
Applicant states that paragraph [0059] further states that "distances between the strength members 300 and the central axis of the main optical fiber 200 may be all equal." These passages, read in conjunction with the drawings, confirm that the spatial relationship between the strength members and the main optical fiber was a contemplated aspect of the disclosed invention.
The text of paragraph 59 does not indicate that there is a critical relationship between a width of the main optical fiber and a distance between the main optical fiber and the auxiliary optical fiber.
Applicant explains that the Office asserted that paragraph [0059]'s disclosure of equal distances from the central axis does not teach that the spacing from the periphery is greater than the fiber diameter. However, paragraph [0059]'s discussion of equal distances from the central axis, when read together with the consistent depiction in the drawings of the strength members positioned at distances from the periphery that visibly exceed the fiber width, demonstrates that the inventor contemplated and possessed the claimed spatial relationship.
The examiner disagrees.
The specification, drawings, and claims as originally filed do not indicate that there is a critical relationship between the width of the main optical fiber (200) and the distance that the auxiliary optical fibers (300) are spaced from the main optical fiber.
The specification does not mention the width of the main optical fiber relative to the spacing of the auxiliary fibers.
The drawings did not label a width of the main fiber or a spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers.
Since these values were not labeled, since the specification did not mention the values, and since there was no indication that the drawings were to scale or that this was a critical feature of the invention, there’s no support for the limitations in question, namely that “the first distance is greater than a width of the main optical fiber, and the second distance is greater than a width of the main optical fiber” recited in the last two lines of amended claim 1.
The offices position on drawings providing support for such relationships when there is no indication that the drawings are to scale is clear and evident from the cited MPEP passages. It would be unfair to apply one standard during examination to allow support for limitations that were not otherwise provided for and a different standard during examination when applying prior art. As such, the examiner’s position is that the Figures of the present application are not sufficient to support the claimed relationship between the width of the main optical fiber and the spacing of the auxiliary optical fibers.
Applicant argues that under MPEP § 2163.02, "an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). There is no requirement that the drawings must be to scale to provide written description support for a qualitative structural relationship. MPEP § 2163.02 further states that "[p]ossession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was 'ready for patenting' such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete."
The drawings simply do not disclose that the claimed relationship is a critical feature of the invention. The drawings do not label the width of the main optical fiber, they do not label the spacing distance between the main optical fiber and the auxiliary optical fiber. Having not provided labels in combination with the lack of disclosure, there is simply no indication that the claimed relationship between the width of the main optical fiber and the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers is a critical feature or that this feature was contemplated at the time of the invention.
Since the features were not labelled, the examiner looked for any indication that the scale of the drawings was contemplated as accurate and essential, but could find none.
Since the claimed relationship was not discussed, was not labelled in the drawings, and there was no indication that the scale of the drawings in any was essential to a critical claim feature, the examiner cannot find support for the limitations in question in the application as originally filed.
Applicant argues that, additionally, MPEP § 2163.02 states that "[t]he subject matter of the claim need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement."
This is not the situation in the present case. There is simply no disclosure in the originally filed application related to the limitations in question. The claimed relationship is not disclosed in other terms.
Applicant states that the Office's reliance on the absence of specific numerical values or explicit textual discussion of this relationship is misplaced. The written description requirement does not mandate that every claimed feature be described in words. The drawings themselves can provide adequate written description support for structural features that are consistently and clearly depicted.
This is not a simple structural feature. It’s structurally clear that there is a main optical fiber (200) and that there are auxiliary optical fibers (300) spaced therefore, those features are evident in the figures. But rather, Applicant is arguing that the simple structure indicates a more complex relationship that the Figures simply do not indicate in any way was contemplated at the time of the filing of the original application. The Figures do not point to a width of the main optical fiber or to a spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers from the main optical fiber. The Figures do not in any way indicate that there is a specific relationship between the main optical fiber and the spacing of the auxiliary optical fibers, or disclose a range of values that would indicate that relationship.
Applicant argues that the written description standard under MPEP § 2163 is distinct from the prior art standard under MPEP § 2125.
The relevant inquiry for written description purposes is whether the drawings convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors possessed the claimed invention, not whether the drawings can be relied upon for precise dimensional measurements as would be required when using drawings as prior art.
The examiner’s opinion is that the written description and the drawings, as originally filed, did not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that there was a critical relationship between the width of the main optical fiber and the spacing of the strength members.
Applicant’s previous arguments seem to require that there are precise dimensional measurements indicated by the drawings to provide support, wherein annotated Figures are provided to illustrate a precise dimensional relationship, but here Applicant is arguing that the issue is not that the drawings are relied upon for precise dimensional measurements, which seems to contradict the previous arguments. In any event, the examiner still does not find support for the limitations in question in the originally filed application.
Applicant argues that they are not claiming specific numerical values or precise numerical proportions, but rather a qualitative structural relationship in which the spacing distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber as consistently depicted across multiple figures in a manner that is visually and unambiguously conveyed.
The lack of specific values and/or ranges with no disclosure or figures to support the claimed relationship between width of the main fiber and the spacing distance of the auxiliary fibers, does not support Applicant’s position that this relationship was contemplated at the time the application was filed. A lack of disclosure of specific examples is in no way evidence of support for the claimed relationship.
Applicant states that the qualitative structural relationship depicted in FIGS. 2, 4, 6 and 7 (i.e., where the spacing between the auxiliary optical fibers and the main optical fiber is visibly greater than the width of the main optical fiber) is consistently shown across all embodiments. The consistent depiction across multiple figures of the auxiliary optical fibers positioned at distances greater than the main optical fiber's width demonstrates that the inventors had possession of the structural arrangement having the claimed spacing-to-width relationship wherein "the first distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber" and "the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber" at the time of filing.
The examiner cannot find any disclosure related to the distance the auxiliary optical fibers (strength members) are spaced from the periphery of the main optical fiber with respect to the diameter of the main optical fiber.
There is no indication in the disclosure that this was considered to be an essential part of the invention, that this relationship was contemplated before the time of filing, or that any novel or unexpected advantages results from the newly claimed relationship between the spacing of the strength members (auxiliary fibers) and the width of the main fiber.
Section 2125 of the MPEP is directed to the application of Drawings as prior art, but is relevant to the present situation in that it establishes the offices position on how the scale of drawings may be relied upon to teach or provide support for claim limitations.
For example, if the publication of the present application were to be used as a prior art reference against a future application, the office is clear that Figure 2 would not provide support for the teaching that the strength members (300 in Figure 2 of the present application) are spaced apart from the main optical fiber (200) by a width greater than a width of the main fiber (300) because the disclosure does not indicate that Figure 2 is to scale and does not provide additional discussion with respect to the limitations in question, because the width of the main optical fiber and the spacing of the strength members in relation to the width is not labeled or annotated in Figure 2, and because there is no indication that Figure 2 was intended to illustrate or support this feature. There is no discussion in the specification related to the newly claimed relationship of the spacing of the strength members to the width, diameter, or radius of the main fiber. There is no discussion of how the newly claimed relations provides novel or unexpected advantages over different spacings. There is no indication that the newly claimed relationship was a pertinent part of the disclosed invention prior to the present amendment.
Applicant states that it is clear that the office’s interpretation of what may be supported by Figures in the MPEP definitively means that Figure 2 does not provide the necessary support. Should the Office continue to believe that MPEP § 2125 and Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) is relevant to ascertaining whether the written description requirement is met, as the Office asserted on page 6 of the Office Action, Applicants respectfully note that the Office bears the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to rebut the presumption that the description as filed is adequate. MPEP § 2163.04 states that "[a] description as filed is presumed to be adequate, unless or until sufficient evidence or reasoning to the contrary has been presented by the examiner to rebut the presumption." See In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971). The Office has not satisfied this burden because MPEP § 2125 and Hockerson-Halberstadt address the use of prior art drawings to establish specific numerical values for purposes of anticipation or obviousness. Neither MPEP § 2125 nor Hockerson-Halberstadt addresses whether an applicant's own drawings can provide written description support for qualitative structural relationships. The Office has not cited any legal authority establishing that the principles of MPEP § 2125 or12 Hockerson-Halberstadt apply to the written description analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The written description standard is governed by MPEP § 2163 and the case law cited therein, not by MPEP § 2125, and the Office's extension of Hockerson-Halberstadt to the written description analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is unsupported by the actual holding of the case.
Applicant’s discussion of Hockerson-Halberstadt specifics are not relevant to the present situation because it’s not the case law that is being relied upon, but the Office’s established principals for whether or not drawings provide support for specific dimensional relationships. In the instant case, Figure 2 does not provide any disclosure with respect to the diameter, width or radius of the fiber in relation to the spacing of the strength members, does not label or annotate the diameter of the fiber or point to the diameter of the fiber, and does not label or point to the spacing of the auxiliary optical fibers with respect a diameter of the main fiber. The figure simply illustrates that there are two auxiliary optical fibers spaced in a radial direction from a main optical fiber, but does not in any way indicate that the spacing being greater than a width of the main fiber is considered relevant to the present invention.
The Examiner has explained repeatedly that the lack of written disclosure in combination with Figures that do not label either the width of the main fiber or the spacing distance of the auxiliary fibers in combination with no indication that the drawings are to scale cannot provide support for the now claimed relationship between the width of the main optical fiber and the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers.
There is simply no indication in the application as originally filed that the now claimed relationship between the width of the main optical fiber and the first and section distances was considered a critical element or novel concept of the invention.
Should Applicant continue to disagree with the Examiner’s analysis of the limitations and lack of support therefore, Applicant may file a Notice of Appeal in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 134 and MPEP Chapter 1200.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant respectfully traverse this rejection of claims 1, 3-10 and 21-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Applicant states that claims 1, 3, 4 and 35 are amended to obviate this rejection.
The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 10, 21-29, and 35-37 in view of Applicant’s Amendments.
Claims 3, 4, and 9 remain rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons explained in the rejection above.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, 21-34 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 204666908 U to Shen et al. (hereinafter "Shen") in view of JP 2014-109751 A to Honma et al. (hereinafter "Honma").
Applicant explains that claim 1 recites "the first distance is greater than a width of the main optical fiber, and the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber."
Applicant further explains that the Office asserted that Shen describes an optical cable having an outer sheath, a main optical fiber, and strength members on first and second sides of the main optical fiber (see Office Action, pages 29-30). The Office also asserted that Shen describes the strength members spaced apart from an outer periphery of the main optical fiber by first and second distances in first and second radial directions (see Office Action, page 30). The Office conceded that Shen does not explicitly disclose that the distances are greater than the diameter of the fiber, but that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it "obvious to try" this arrangement as one of only three possible options (see Office Action, pages 30-31). The Office additionally asserted that Honma describes strength members formed of auxiliary optical fibers (see Office Action, page 31). No combination of the applied references, however, would have rendered claim 1 prima facie obvious for at least the following reasons. The combination of Shen and Honma fails to render obvious "the first distance is greater than a width of the main optical fiber, and the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber," as claimed.
Applicant continues explaining that the Office asserted that Figure 2 of Shen illustrates space between the fiber (1) and the strength members (3). However, as shown in Figure 2 of Shen, the strength members (3) are in direct contact with the tight sleeve layer (2) that surrounds the optical fiber (1), and the only spacing between the strength members and the fiber is the thickness of the tight sleeve. Shen does not disclose that this spacing is greater than the width of the optical fiber, nor does Shen disclose or suggest that this spacing has any particular relationship to the width of the optical fiber. Given Shen's emphasis on compactness, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Shen's structure as minimizing the spacing between components, not as suggesting that the spacing should be increased to a distance greater than the fiber width.
Applicant argues that the Office's "obvious to try" rationale is improper because it does not identify any recognized problem or need that would be solved by spacing the strength members at a distance greater than the fiber width. The Office merely asserted that the spacing must inherently be less than, equal to, or greater than the fiber width, and that one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to try any of these options. This characterization improperly oversimplifies the design space. The spacing between the strength members and the main optical fiber is a continuous variable with an infinite number of possible values, not a finite set of three discrete options.
The examiner disagrees.
What problem is being solved by providing the auxiliary optical fibers spaced at a distance greater than the width of the main optical fiber?
Does the specification of the present application explain or address how the spacing of the strength members with respect to the main optical fibers addresses a known problem or provides unexpected results?
Applicant has not pointed to any novel or unexpected results? Are there novel or unexpected results? Where are the novel and unexpected results that occur do to the claimed relationship between the width of the main fiber and the spacing of the auxiliary fibers discussed in the present application?
There is no evidence on the record to suggest that any novel or unexpected results occur from the spacing of the strength member relative to the diameter of the main optical fiber.
Applicant argues that the "obvious to try" rationale under MPEP § 2143(E) requires "a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions," not merely the mathematical truism that any value must fall into one of three abstract categories. As the Federal Circuit cautioned, the "obvious to try" inquiry must be undertaken in the context of the subject matter in question, "including the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest." Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1352, 89 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Applicant further states that the Office's reasoning improperly treats the spacing-to-width relationship as a result-effective variable without any evidence that the prior art recognized this relationship as affecting any particular result.
The examiner cannot find any evidence that the current application recognized the claimed relationship between the width of the main optical fiber and the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers as affecting any particular results or is for solving any particular problem.
Regardless, the facts are that the auxiliary optical fibers are spaced a distance from the main optical fiber, and that distance is necessarily greater than, less than, or equal to the width of the main optical fiber, as these are the only possibilities. There does not appear to be any novel or unexpected consequences that would occur from any variation.
Absent specific disclosure in the present application related to a novel or unexpected result, the examiner cannot find any reason to think that one would occur. Applicant has not clearly pointed to a novel or unexpected result occurring from the claimed relationship.
Applicant argues that neither Shen nor Honma recognizes the spacing distance relative to the fiber width as a parameter that affects any property of the optical cable. Absent such recognition in the prior art, there would be no motivation for one of ordinary skill to experiment with this specific relationship.
The is an interesting argument that appears to provide support for the Examiner’s position with respect to the lack of written description and lack of drawing support. Absent disclosure related to a relationship between the width of the main optical fiber and a spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers, why would one consider this relationship to be a critical relationship? No novel or unexpected results are readily apparent regardless of the spacing of the auxiliary members being greater than, less than, or equal to a width of the main optical fiber. The closer spaced the auxiliary members are to the main optical fiber, the more rigid the cable design would likely be and the farther the auxiliary members are from the main optical fiber, the more flexible the cable design would likely be, but there’s really no apparent novel or unexpected results provided by spacing the auxiliary fibers at any specific distance relative to a width of the main optical fiber.
Applicant states: See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (holding that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation); see also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). While KSR held that "obvious to try" may be a valid rationale for obviousness, even under KSR, the Office must identify a design need or market pressure and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. Here, the Office has identified neither a design need nor a market pressure that would motivate spacing the strength members at a distance greater than the fiber width, and the prior art does not recognize the spacing-to-width relationship as a relevant design parameter.
The present application also does not recognize a design need nor market pressure that would motivate spacing the strength members at a distance greater than the fiber width, nor disclose the spacing-to-width relationship as a relevant design parameter.
Applicant argues that there is no problem being solved, no motivation, and no advantage taught by the prior art. And that is the point of the rejection. The claimed spacing relationship between the distance of the auxiliary fibers from the main fiber and the width of the main fiber does not appear to provide any novel result or unexpected advantages over that of prior art and is one of only three possibilities that are all within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
There is still a limited number of options and they would not produce novel or unexpected results.
Applicant has not pointed to any novel or unexpected results that occur due to the spacing of the auxiliary fibers with respect to the diameter of the main optical fiber.
Applicant argues that, furthermore, even if Honma's alleged teaching of using optical fibers as strength members could be applied to Shen, neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed spacing-to-width relationship. In Honma, the optical fiber 10 and glass body 20 are integrated in a row to form a tape core wire 40a, and the tape core wire 40a is arranged to be freely twistable in the internal space surrounded by the outer jacket 30. (see Honma, para. [0024]). In contrast, claim 1 recites "the first auxiliary optical fiber, the second auxiliary optical fiber, and the main optical fiber are embedded in the outer sheath." In other words, the first auxiliary optical fiber, the second auxiliary optical fiber, and the main optical fiber in claim 1 cannot be freely twistable in the outer sheath. Regardless of the structural differences between the claimed optical cable and Honma's arrangement, the critical deficiency is that neither Honma nor Shen teaches or suggests the claimed spacing-to-width relationship.
Honma was only relied upon for the teaching that strength members could be formed of auxiliary optical fibers.
Shen was relied upon for the location and orientation of the strength members.
Applicant states that Honma further describes that in the tape core wire 40a, the optical fiber 10 and the glass body 20 are in contact with each other, and the distance between them is undoubtedly zero or near zero, rendering the distance between the optical fiber 10 and the glass body 20 as being less than the diameter of the optical fiber 10 (see Honma, FIGs. 2(a) and 2(b), which are reproduced below for the Examiner's convenience). The arrangement described in Honma is exactly the opposite of the claimed "the first distance is greater than a width of the main optical fiber, and the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber."
Here Applicant argues features of the prior art that were not relied upon in the rejection.
Honma was only relied upon for the teaching that auxiliary optical fibers may be used to form strength members.
Lastly, neither Shen nor Honma provides any motivation to space strength members at a distance greater than the fiber width, nor do they recognize the spacing-to-width relationship as a result-effective variable. The Office has not pointed to any disclosure in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to consider the relationship between the spacing distance and the fiber width as a relevant design parameter. Without such recognition in the prior art, the claimed spacing relationship would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Office's conclusory assertion that "no novel or unexpected advantages would appear to occur regardless" of the spacing does not satisfy the requirement for articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 ("[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.").
Applicant has not pointed to any novel or unexpected advantages arising from the claimed relationship.
Applicant has not pointed to a particular problem that the claimed relationship solves.
Having not pointed out the novel or unexpected advantages, and having provided no disclosure of the criticality of the claimed relationship between the auxiliary fiber spacing the main fiber diameter, Applicant’s arguments appear to be mere conclusory statements that there is a novel or unexpected advantage.
Applicant concludes that, as such, no combination of the applied references teaches or suggests "the first distance is greater than a width of the main optical fiber, and the second distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber," as recited in claim 1.
The examiner disagrees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights