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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 10,678,012 B1). Wu teaches:
1. A shuffle cable (190, Fig. 8) comprising:
a cable having N number of ribbonized groups of optical fibers (204) with each of the N number of groups having M number of optical fibers (twelve),
wherein each of the N number of groups is color-coded with a distinct color to distinguish it from all others of the N number of groups (C13 L18-23).
2. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein the N number of groups (204) are color-coded according to a pre-determined sequence (each group has a color, that is the pre-determined sequence).
4. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein the shuffle cable (190) has a first end (192) and a second end (191) and wherein each of the N number of ribbonized groups (204) of optical fibers of at least one of the first and second ends is pre-terminated to a respective connector (C13 L3-10, 47-53).
5. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein the shuffle cable (190) has a first end (192) and a second end (191) and wherein each of the N number of ribbonized groups (204) of optical fibers at the first end is pre- terminated to a respective connector and wherein each of the N number of ribbonized groups (203) of optical fibers at the second end is connector-free (C13 L3-10, 47-53; either end can be connectorized or not).
6. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein at least one of the optical fibers of each of the N number of groups includes an indicator of a numerical sequence of the at least one optical fiber within its respective group (see Fig 9, the first and last having “indicators” based on ribbon position).
7. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein the M number optical fibers within each group are marked with at least a first fiber indicator and a last fiber indicator, the first and last fiber indicators indicating a numerical sequence of the M number of fibers in the group (see Fig 9, the first and last having “indicators” based on ribbon position – see “FIRST” and “LAST”).
20. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein N is equal to M (twelve).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
Wu does not state the color-code sequence is the TIA-598(c) standard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using an industry standard sequence for color coding fiber cables, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Industry standards are by definition identified and predictable and one of ordinary skill in art would expect using the TIA-598 standard to succeed in Wu since Wu has a number of groupings that could adhere to this standard.
Claims 1-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al (US 8,873,967 B2) and Robinson et al (US 6,464,404 B1).
Barnes teaches:
1. A shuffle cable (60, Fig. 9) comprising:
a cable having N number of groups (60A, B) of optical fibers (65) with each of the N number of groups having M number of optical fibers (twelve),
wherein each of the N number of groups is color-coded with a distinct color to distinguish it from all others of the N number of groups (one group is primed, one unprimed; C5 L32-46).
2. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein the N number of groups (60A, B) are color-coded according to a pre-determined sequence (transmitter group is unprimed and receiver group is primed, C5 L32-46).
4. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein the shuffle cable (60) has a first end (70A/B1) and a second end (70A/B2) and wherein each of the N number of groups (204) of optical fibers of at least one of the first and second ends is pre-terminated to a respective connector (C6 L57 – C7 L6).
5. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein the shuffle cable (190) has a first end (192) and a second end (191) and wherein each of the N number of groups (204) of optical fibers at the first end is pre- terminated to a respective connector (C6 L57 – C7 L6).
20. The shuffle cable of claim 1, wherein N is equal to M (twelve).
Barnes does not teach expressly the cable being ribbonized or a second end of the cable being connector free or wherein at least one of the optical fibers of each of the N number of groups includes an indicator of a numerical sequence of the at least one optical fiber within its respective group.
Robinson teaches a shuffle cable (10, Fig. 2) wherein the fibers are ribbonized (C2 L33-46) wherein at least one of the optical fibers of each of the N number of groups includes an indicator of a numerical sequence of the at least one optical fiber within its respective group (see Fig 3, the first and last having “indicators” based on ribbon position) and similarly wherein the M number optical fibers within each group are marked with at least a first fiber indicator and a last fiber indicator, the first and last fiber indicators indicating a numerical sequence of the M number of fibers in the group (see Fig 3, the first and last having “indicators” based on ribbon position – see “a” and “d” fibers).
Barnes and Robinson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, shuffle cables.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cable of Barnes to use ribbonized fibers as taught by Robinson.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce cost and complexity by using widely used and known types of cable, such as ribbon cables to secure groups of fibers.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try having a free end of the cable without a cable, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. It is predictable to have a free end of a shuffle cable so a user can select particular fibers for particular routing.
Regarding claim 3: Barnes and Robinson do not state the color-code sequence is the TIA-598(c) standard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using an industry standard sequence for color coding fiber cables, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Industry standards are by definition identified and predictable and one of ordinary skill in art would expect using the TIA-598 standard to succeed in Barnes and Robinson since Barnes and Robinson has a number of groupings that could adhere to this standard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
These claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a cable having N number of ribbonized groups of optical fibers with each of the N number of groups having M number of optical fibers, wherein each of the N number of groups is color-coded with a distinct color to distinguish it from all others of the N number of groups,
wherein the cable has a first end and a second end; wherein each of the N number of ribbonized groups of optical fibers of the first end is pre-terminated to a respective first connector; wherein at the second end of the cable, an N number of multi-color groups have one optical fiber from each of the N number of color-coded groups of M number of ribbonized optical fibers; wherein each of the N number of multi-color groups of optical fibers of the second end is pre-terminated to a respective second connector; wherein the first end includes first furcation tubes extending from the respective first connectors to a first transition housing; wherein the second end includes second furcation tubes extending from the respective second connectors to a second transition housing; wherein a main cable with an outer jacket extends between the first transition housing and the second transition housing; wherein each of the N number of ribbonized groups of optical fibers is positioned inside the outer jacket of the main cable,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874