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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed January 28, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that claims 1, 3-10 and 21-37 are pending in this application. By this Amendment, several claims are amended, claims 21-37 are added, and claims 2 and 11-20 are canceled. Support for the amendments to claim 1 may be found in at least original claim 2, in paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0055] and [0056] of the original specification, and in FIGs. 1, 2, 4 and 7 as originally filed. Support for the amendments to claims 3-10 may be found in at least FIGs. 3-7. Further amendments to the claims are made for consistency and for clarity. Support for added claims 21-37 may be found in at least paragraphs [0046], [0052]-[0053], [0057], [0061], [0065], [0070], [0075], [0088]-[0090], [0099], [0108], [0112] and [0114] of the original specification, and in FIGs. 3-7 as originally filed. No new matter is believed to have been added. Claims 2 and 11-20 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer. Reconsideration and allowance of the present application are respectfully requested.
The examiner disagrees that paragraphs and Figures pointed to provide support for the amendment to claim 1. Please see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 below.
Applicant has provided a brief description of the Interview on January 26, 2026.
Examiner Connelly’s detailed interview description can be found in the Interview Summary mailed on January 29, 2026.
Applicants' representative additionally noted to Examiner Connelly that an assertion that the amendments to claim 1 do not comply with the written description requirement and be considered new matter in view of MPEP § 2125 and Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) would be misplaced. Instead, MPEP § 2163 is applicable.
The examiner disagrees.
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. Examiner Connelly explained during the interview, that after consultation with a supervisor regarding this issue, it was determined that Figure 2 would not provide adequate support for the amendment and the amendment would be considered new matter.
Applicant explains that as a follow-on to this matter, and in an attempt to advance prosecution of this application, Applicants respectfully submit that the present application provides ample written description support for the amendments to the claims.
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.
Applicants also provide the following regarding the standard that should be applied when considering whether and application as originally filed provides written description support for the claim amendments and a brief explanation with respect to the present application:
Applicant states that MPEP § 2125 addresses the use of drawings as prior art and states that "When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value," citing Hockerson-Halberstadt. MPEP § 2125 and Hockerson-Halberstadt concern whether prior art drawings can be relied upon to establish specific numerical values or precise proportions for purposes of anticipation or obviousness. In fact, the title of MPEP § 2125 is "Drawings as Prior Art." MPEP § 2125 and Hockerson-Halberstadt do not address whether an applicant's own drawings can provide written description support for relative structural relationships that are clearly and consistently depicted across multiple figures. Hockerson-Halberstadt involved an attempt to derive specific numerical dimensions from prior art drawings that were not drawn to scale. The present situation is fundamentally different: Applicants are not claiming specific numerical values, but rather a relative structural relationship (i.e., that the spacing distance is greater than the width of the main optical fiber) that is clearly and consistently depicted in at least FIGS. 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the present application.
As explained above, 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.
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. Examiner Connelly explained during the interview, that after consultation with a supervisor regarding this issue, it was determined that Figure 2 would not provide adequate support for the amendment and the amendment would be considered new matter.
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.
Applicant expounds that, moreover, MPEP § 2163.02 establishes that "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).
Applicant has not pointed to any words, structures, figures, diagrams, or formulas in the originally filed application (abstract, disclosure, drawings, original claims) that disclose that the spacing of the auxiliary fibers is related to the diameter of the main fiber. Figure 2 does not even label or point to the diameter of the fiber or the spacing of the auxiliary fibers.
Applicant continues that MPEP § 2163.02 further states that "Possession 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, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention."
Applicant has not shown that the limitations in question were described, especially since the Figure being relied upon for support does not label or point to the diameter of the main optical fiber or the spaced distance of the auxiliary optical fibers in relation to the diameter of the main fiber.
Applicant further states that, notably, MPEP § 2163 is silent regarding any requirement that drawings be "to scale" to provide written description support. This silence is significant because the written description inquiry is fundamentally different from the prior art inquiry addressed in MPEP § 2125.
There is no requirement that the drawings are to scale. However, as explained above, for a scale to be inferred from the drawings the application would have to teach that the drawings are to scale. Otherwise, the drawings at best provide a suggestion to a person of ordinary skill in the art, but there’s no evidence that the claimed dimensional relationship was considered relevant to the invention at the time the application was filed.
Applicant explains that MPEP § 2163 states "the fundamental inquiry for written description is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed," citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the instant case, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the invention was in possession of the invention as now claimed.
The originally filed disclosure, including the abstract, written description, original claims, and drawings do no reference the diameter of the main optical fiber with respect to a spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers from the main optical fiber.
Figure 2 does not label or point to a main fiber diameter.
Figure 2 does not label or point to a specific spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers with respect to a diameter of the main fiber.
The disclosure does not discuss the spacing of the auxiliary optical fibers (strength members) with respect to the main fiber diameter.
Applicant also states that, furthermore, MPEP § 2163 states "The 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."
The originally filed application does not use different terms to discuss the diameter of the main optical fiber with respect to the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers.
There is simply no description of the diameter of the main optical fiber as it relates to a spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers.
Applicant states that the claimed relative relationship in which the auxiliary optical fibers are spaced apart from the main optical fiber by a distance greater than the width of the main optical fiber is clearly and consistently depicted, as noted above, in FIGS. 2, 4, 5 and 7. One of ordinary skill in the art, viewing these figures, would immediately recognize that the inventor possessed this structural arrangement at the time of filing.
The examiner disagrees.
Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7 do not point to or label a diameter of the main optical fiber (200). These figures do not point to or label the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers (300) with respect to a diameter of the main optical fiber (200). There is no equation provided in the figures, no written description, and no label that indicates that the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers (300) from a periphery of the main optical fiber (200) is greater than a diameter of the main optical fiber (200). There is absolutely no indication that this was considered a necessary or an essential part, or even a part of the disclosed invention.
At best, Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7 illustrate that the auxiliary optical fibers (300) are spaced from the periphery of the main fiber (200) in a radial direction in a plane defined by an x-y axis as labeled in the Figures. However, the Figures and specification in no way suggest that the spacing is at all related to a diameter of the main optical fiber.
Applicant argues that, lastly, in each of FIGS. 2, 4, 5 and 7, the auxiliary optical fibers (strength members 300) are depicted as being positioned at a distance from the main optical fiber 200 that is visibly and clearly greater than the width/diameter of the main optical fiber 200 itself. This is not a matter of measuring precise dimensions from drawings not to scale; rather, it is a matter of recognizing a qualitative structural relationship that is consistently and unambiguously depicted across multiple figures.
The examiner disagrees.
As discussed above, at best, Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7 illustrate that the auxiliary optical fibers (300) are spaced from the main fiber (200) in a radial direction in a plane defined by an x-y axis as labeled in the Figures. However, this in no way suggests that the spacing is at all related to a diameter of the main optical fiber.
Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7 do not point to or label a diameter of the main optical fiber (200). These figures do not point to or label the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers (300) with respect to a periphery of the main optical fiber (200). There is no equation provided in the figures, no written description, and no labels that indicate that the spacing distance of the auxiliary optical fibers (300) are related in any way to the diameter of the main optical fiber (200) or are greater than a diameter of the main optical fiber (200). There is absolutely no indication that this was considered a necessary or an essential part, or even a part of the disclosed invention.
Applicant also argues that the specification describes that the strength members are "spaced apart on an outer periphery of the main optical fiber" (paragraph [0054]) and that "distances between the strength members 300 and the central axis of the main optical fiber 200 may be all equal" (paragraph [0059]). When read in conjunction with the drawings, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the depicted spacing, which is clearly greater than the width of the main optical fiber in every figure, represents that the inventor possessed the claimed structural arrangement.
The examiner disagrees.
While paragraph 59 does disclose that distances between the auxiliary optical fibers (strength members 300) may be equal with respect to a central axis of the main fiber (200), this teaching in no way teaches that a distance between a strength members and a periphery of the main optical fiber is greater than a diameter of the main optical fibers.
There is no disclosure related to the diameter of the main optical fiber with respect to a spacing distance between the auxiliary optical fibers (strength members 300) and the periphery of the main optical fiber (200).
Applicant concludes that for at least the foregoing reasons, the as-filed specification, including FIGS. 2, 4, 5 and 7 and the descriptions thereof, provides adequate written description support for the limitation "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." Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) based on MPEP § 2125 or Hockerson-Halberstadt would be misplaced because those authorities address the use of prior art drawings to establish specific numerical values, and not whether an applicant's own drawings can support relative structural relationships that are clearly and consistently depicted.
The examiner disagrees for all the reasons discussed above.
There is no written description regarding a spacing distance of the strength members (300) with respect to a diameter of the main optical fiber (200).
There are no labels in the Figures suggesting that the spacing of the strength members or the diameter of the main optical fibers are important to the present invention or related in any way.
There are no equations disclosed that show the relationship between the strength member spacing and the diameter of the main optical fiber.
Applicant explains that amended claim 1 recites, "the first auxiliary optical fiber is spaced apart from an outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a first distance in a first radial direction extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber, the second auxiliary optical fiber is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a second distance in a second radial direction extending away from the second side of the main optical fiber, ... 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."
Applicants argues that no combination of Shen and/or Honma would have rendered claim 1 prima facie obvious for at least the following reasons. First, Shen neither teaches nor suggests "the first auxiliary optical fiber is spaced apart from an outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a first distance in a first radial direction extending away from the first side of the main optical fiber, the second auxiliary optical fiber is spaced apart from the outer periphery of the main optical fiber by a second distance in a second radial direction extending away from the second side of the main optical fiber, ... 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.
The examiner disagrees. The rejection has been rewritten to address all newly presented limitations of amended claim 1. Please see the rejection below.
Applicant states that in Shen, a tight buffered layer 2 which covers the fiber optic cable 1 is directly contacted with the reinforcing members 3. The reinforcing members 3 are not spaced apart from the tight buffered layer 2 (see Shen, Figure 2 and paragraphs [0010] and [0025]-[0026]).
The examiner disagrees.
The strength members (3) in Figure 2 of Shen are spaced from the optical fiber (1). This is all that is required by amended claim 1.
The tight buffer (2) is in the space between the fiber (1) and the strength members (3). Claim 1 does not define a tight buffer, and there are no limitations related to a spacing requirement with respect to a tight buffer.
Applicant further states that Shen is silent with respect to the thickness of the tight buffered layer 2. Shen is silent with respect to any distance between the reinforcing members 3 and the fiber optic cable 1. Shen is silent regarding any spacing requirement between the reinforcing members 3 and the fiber optic cable 1. Shen is also silent regarding any relationship between the width of the fiber optic cable 1 and the distance separating the reinforcing members 3 and the fiber optic cable 1.
The examiner disagrees.
Figure 2 of Shen illustrates space between the fiber (1) and the strength members (3).
Furthermore, the purpose of Shen is to provide a structure that is compact. (see Shen, para. [0016], "The principle is simple, the structure is compact."). Based on what is discussed and illustrated in Shen, one of ordinary skill would recognize that Shen do not disclose the reinforcing member 3 should be spaced apart from the fiber optic cable 1 by any particular distance, and that the compact structure discussed in Shen merely describes minimizing distances between components to the point of having the tight buffered layer 2 and the reinforcing members 3 being in contact as shown in Figure 2 of Shen for compactness, rather than maximizing spacing to an amount that is "greater than a width of the main optical fiber."
The fiber (1) is spaced apart from the strength members (3) in Figure 2 of Shen.
The width of the main optical fiber (1) must inherently be either less than, equal to, or greater than the spacing distance, as those are the only three possibilities, and each of them is within the grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art, as no novel or unexpected advantages would appear to occur regardless.
All newly claimed limitations have been addressed in detail in the rejections below.
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);
the second auxiliary optical fiber comprising a second multi-core optical fiber (see claim 28);
an FMC connector connected to the main optical fiber (see claim 30);
at least one connector prefabricated at one end of the main optical fiber (see claim 31).
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, and 21-37 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 and 21-37 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 1, 3-10, and 21-37 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 1; the claim recites the following limitations (emphasis added by examiner) “the main optical fiber extends in a first direction, the first strength member extends in a second direction parallel to the first direction, the second strength member extends in a third direction parallel to the first direction” in lines 11-14 of claim 1.
With reference to Applicant’s Figure 2, a Cartesian Coordinate System is defined X indicating a first direction and y indicating a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction. As can be seen in Applicant’s Figure 1, the main optical fiber and strength members (200 and 300, respectively) having a longitudinal length extending in an unlabeled direction, which in Figure 2 would be into and out of the paper. The longitudinal extension direction would generally be indicated as a z direction using conventional Cartesian Coordinate axis labels for an x-y-z coordinate system. In any event, the fiber and strength members extend in a single, same direction.
The examiner opines that the language of claim 1 confuses the longitudinal axis of each of the main fiber and the strength members with a direction. The main optical fiber has a longitudinal axis that extends in the first direction (z direction), which is perpendicular to the labeled x and y directions in Figure 2. The strength members also have longitudinal axis that extend in the first direction (z direction), wherein the axis of each strength member are parallel to the axis of the main fiber in the first direction (z direction). However, it is not accurate to state that the main optical fiber extends in a first direction and that the first and second strength members extend in second and third directions, because there is a single direction that all three elements extend in, not multiple directions.
The examiner notes that the specification and drawings also do not refer to the first, second, and third directions that were added by the recent amendment. These limitations, however, have not been rejection under new matter because the examiner believes that this was an error in how the disclosed physical structure of the cable is being described with respect to the extension direction of the axis. Clarification is required.
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 sixth direction different from the first direction, and there is an angle between the sixth direction and the first 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 a third auxiliary optical fiber arranged along a sixth direction different from the first direction. As illustrated in ALL figures, the auxiliary fibers (300) and the main fiber (200) have a longitudinal axis that extends in a single direction. Figure 4 discloses first, second, third and fourth auxiliary optical fibers (300) extending in an unlabeled direction, 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. There are no different directions taught in the specification. 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 claim 4; the claim recites “the sixth direction” in line 2 of the claim, which is unclear for the reasons discussed above with reference to claim 3.
Regarding claim 35; the claim recites the limitations (emphasis added by examiner) “the third auxiliary optical fiber extends in a fourth direction parallel to the second direction, the fourth auxiliary optical fiber extending in a fifth direction parallel to the third direction” in lines 5-6 of claim 35. The examiner notes, that as illustrated in Figure 4, the third and fourth auxiliary fibers extend in the third direction (z direction) and each have a longitudinal axis that is parallel to the first and second auxiliary optical fibers and parallel to the main optical fiber. There are no distinct fourth and fifth directions, all of the fibers, both auxiliary and main fibers, extend in a single direction. The specification does not disclose or suggest embodiments where fibers extend in different directions. Clarification is required.
Claims 3-10 and 21-37 inherently contain the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, fourth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 defines an optical cable. Claim 30 depends from claim 1 and states “an FMC connector is connected to the main optical fiber.” An FMC connector is a field mountable connector, which means that the connector is attached to optical fibers in the field and is not provided as part of the cable. Thus, claim 30 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 21-34, 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 a second direction parallel to 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 a third direction parallel to 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 along the first direction (see Figure 2 of Shen);
wherein a shape of a cross-section of the first groove through a 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) along the first radial direction of the main optical fiber (1; see Figure 2), and a height of the outer sheath (4) along 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 30 and 31; before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide any desired known optical connector coupled to the main optical fiber in the cable of Shen, including a field mountable connector (FMC) or a prefabricated connector included with the cable for the purpose of allowing the optical signal to be transmitted to and from the main optical fiber to another fiber or element with the use of the standard connector to efficiently maintain connection thereto.
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 a fourth direction parallel to the second direction,
the fourth auxiliary optical fiber extending in a fifth direction parallel to the third 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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