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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that Jamet and Keller do not teach the fibers being loosely packed within the buffer tube: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection uses Blazer for the teaching of using loosely packed fiber within the buffer tube. Applicant recites portions of Jamet that refer to the embodiment of the cable of Fig. 4, which is materially different from the cable used in the rejection (the cable of Fig. 9). Applicant points to Fig. 9 as showing tightly packed fiber within the sheath, but the claim says the fibers are loosely packed within the buffer tube. The claim says the fiber are “packed”, just loosely. Given nothing in Jamet says the fibers are unmovable or tight within the buffer tubes with respect to the cable of Fig. 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that loose packing could be used in this embodiment, especially given the teaching of Blazer used in the rejection. Again, applicant is referring to portions of Jamet that concern the cable of Fig. 4 wherein each buffer tube includes a single fiber. The cable used in the rejection has multiple fibers and there is space shown between the fibers and there is no specific disclosure saying these fibers are unmovable and thus not able to be loosely packed. Keller is not used to teach the loosely packed limitation so the argument concerning loose fibers in Keller is moot.
Regarding the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not think to substitute the fibers subunits of Jamet and Keller for loose tube subunits: These arguments again point to Jamet teachings that reference the cable of Fig. 4 with single fiber subunits, not the cable of Fig. 9 that is used for the rejection. The cable of Fig. 9 of Jamet shows space between individual fibers in each subunit so having these fibers being loosely “packed” would not render the cable unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamet et al (US 7,082,241 B2) in view of Keller et al (US 8,467,645 B2) and Blazer (US 8,620,124 B1).
Jamet teaches:
1. A fiber optic cable (9, Fig. 9), comprising:
a core (within 11, 12) comprising a plurality of cable subunits (10) configured such that an outer group of cable subunits surrounds a central cable subunit (see Fig. 8), wherein each cable subunit comprises:
one or more optical fibers (2);
a buffer tube (3) surrounding the one or more optical fibers (2); and
a thin film outer sheath (11, 12) surrounding the core (within 11, 12),
wherein the thin film outer sheath (11, 12) is continuous peripherally around the outer group of cable subunits (10), forming a continuous closed loop when viewed in cross-section and continuous lengthwise along a length of the cable (C9 L36-52) that is at least 10 meters (C6 L20-36),
wherein the thin film outer sheath (11, 12) is in radial tension around the core (within 11, 12) such that the thin film outer sheath (11, 12) opposes outwardly transverse deflection of the cable subunits (10) (C8 L46 – C9 L26), and
wherein the thin film outer sheath (11, 12) loads the outer group of cable subunits normally to the central cable subunit (C8 L46-50) such that contact between the outer group of cable subunits and the central cable subunit provides coupling therebetween (C8 L46-61), limiting axial migration of the outer group of cable subunits relative to the central cable subunit (C8 L46-61).
3. The fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein the outer group of cable subunits (10) includes six cable subunits surrounding the central cable subunit (10) for a total of seven cable subunits (see Fig. 9).
4. The fiber optic cable of claim 3, wherein the one or more optical fibers (2) includes at least four optical fibers in each buffer tube (3) (Fig. 9).
13. The fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein the thin film outer sheath (11/12) has a thickness of 0.5 mm or less (C9 L33-35).
14. The fiber optic cable of claim 13, wherein the thickness of the thin film outer sheath 0.35 mm plus or minus 0.05 mm and in the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
17. The fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein the thin film outer sheath (11, 12) is formed from a material having a Young's modulus of 3 GPa or less (C8 L62 – C9 L26). In the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
19. The fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein the thin film outer sheath (11, 12) is visually distinguishable from the subunit jacket (3) of each cable subunit (10) (the location of the outer sheath is different from the location of the subunits and the number of subunits are greater than the outer sheath, both of these properties will provide “visually distinguishable” characteristics to tell these layers apart from each other).
Further, the claim includes functional limitations like the sheath “loads” the outer group of cable subunits and limiting axial migration of the outer group of cable subunits relative to the central cable subunit and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);< In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
Jamet does not teach expressly each cable subunit comprising a strength layer surrounding the buffer tube and a subunit jacket surrounding the strength layer.
Keller teaches a fiber optic cable (100, Fig. 4), comprising a core (within 20) comprising a plurality of cable subunits (10) configured such that an outer group of cable units surrounds a central cable subunit (see Fig. 4), wherein each cable subunit (10) comprising an optical fiber (part of 12), a buffer tube (12), a strength layer (14) surrounding the buffer tube (12) and a subunit jacket (16) surrounding the strength layer (14).
Jamet and Keller are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic 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 subunits of Jamet to use the subunit taught by Keller.
The motivation for doing so would have been to use known, standard subunit types for use in interior of a building such as an apartment or multi-dwelling unit (Keller, C1 L18-26, C3 L42-47).
Jamet and Keller teach the fiber optic cable previously discussed.
Jamet and Keller do not teach expressly the radial tension of the thin film outer sheath has a distributed loading of at least 5 newtons per meter length of the cable or the fibers being loosely packed within the buffer tube (tight-buffered optical fibers loosely packed within the buffer tube of the at least one cable subunit) or a ripcord in the outer sheath.
Blazer teaches a fiber optic cable core (112, Fig. 2A) wherein the radial tension of a thin film outer sheath (126) has a distributed loading of at least 5 newtons per meter length of the cable (C10 L48-59) and wherein fibers (118) in subunits (116) are loosely packed within the buffer tubes (C4 L10-15) and ripcords (142) provided within the outer sheath (126).
Jamet, Keller and Blazer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic 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 thin film outer sheath of Jamet and Keller to use one with the radial tension taught by Blazer and to modify the subunit of Jamet and Keller to use a loose fiber type wherein tight-buffered fibers are loosely packed in the buffer tube as taught by Blazer and to use a ripcord within the outer sheath as taught by Blazer.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve stability and integrity of the cable (Blazer, C10 L35-47) and to use known categories of subunits such as loose tube types and to provide easy access to the subunits by providing a structure that allows the sheath to be torn open.
Regarding claims 6-7, Jamet does not teach the buffer tube wall being 0.15-0.25mm thick, but Jamet does teach retaining sheath thicknesses are known to be 0.15 to 0.25 mm (C4 L42-49).
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 sheath of Fig. 9 of Jamet to use the sheath thickness that Jamet teaches are known.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide padding that damps any stresses exerted by thinner layers (Jamet, C4 L42-49).
Regarding claim 18: Jamet and Keller do not teach the thin film outer sheath is formed primarily from a polyethylene material and comprises strips of co-extruded polypropylene to facilitate opening of the thin film outer sheath.
Blazer teaches an outer sheath (134) is formed primarily from a polyethylene material and comprises strips of co-extruded polypropylene to facilitate opening of the thin film outer sheath (C8 L66 – C9 L16).
Jamet, Keller and Blazer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic 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 sheath of Jamet and Keller to include a sheath with a polyethylene material and comprises strips of co-extruded polypropylene to facilitate opening of the thin film outer sheath as taught by Blazer.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce cost and complexity by using known methods and materials for providing cable access.
Regarding claim 20: Jamet and Keller do not teach wherein the thin film outer sheath comprises a difference in value on the Munsell scale of at least 3 relative to each subunit jacket.
Blazer teaches different layers in the optical cable having a difference in value on the Munsell scale of at least 3 (C9 L17-32).
Jamet, Keller and Blazer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic 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 sheath and subunit jackets of Jamet and Keller to include a color different of at least 3 on the Munsell scale since Blazer teaches this color configuration will allow the components to be visually different from each other.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce damage by using color to distinguish different layers and tubes to the wrong ones are not tampered with.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamet, Keller and Blazer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baca et al (US 2016/0054531 A1).
Jamet, Keller and Blazer teach the fiber optic cable previously discussed.
Jamet, Keller and Blazer do not teach expressly:
8. The fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein an outside diameter of the buffer tube is between 1.6 mm and 1.8 mm prior to distortion under radial forces.
9. The fiber optic cable of claim 8, wherein an outside diameter of the buffer tube is about 1.7 mm.
10. The fiber optic cable of claim k, wherein an inner diameter of the buffer tube is between 1.2 mm and 1.3 mm.
11. The fiber optic cable of claim 10, wherein the inner diameter of the buffer tube is about 1.3 mm.
12. The fiber optic cable of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the inner diameter to the outer diameter of the buffer tube is 0.8 plus or minus 0.1.
Baca teaches a fiber optic cable (10, Fig. 1) wherein subunit buffer tubes (30) have an outside diameter of 1.8-2.4, an inner diameter of 1.2-1.9mm (P0044) resulting in a ratio of ID and OD in the range of 0.8 plus or minus 0.1.
Since there is no range specified as to what “about” is in all the claims, it will be assumed 0.1 mm is in the range of about, resulting in each dimension having at least a 0.1mm range of possible “about” ranges and in the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Jamet, Keller, Blazer and Baca are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic 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 dimensions of the buffer tube of Jamet, Keller and Blazer to use the dimensions taught by Baca.
The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain sufficient crush-performance through frictional movement (Baca, P0044).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamet, Keller and Blazer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ginocchio et al (US 7,860,361 B2).
Jamet, Keller and Blazer teach the fiber optic cable previously discussed.
Jamet, Keller and Blazer do not teach expressly wherein the fiber optic cable has an outside diameter of 13.8mm plus or minus 0.7 mm.
Ginocchio teaches a fiber optic cable (100, Fig. 2) wherein an outer diameter is 13.8mm (C10 L60-63).
Jamet, Keller, Blazer and Ginocchio are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, fiber optic 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 outer diameter of the cable of Jamet, Keller and Blazer to use the diameter taught by Ginocchio.
The motivation for doing so would have been to make the cable particularly suitable for urban distribution networks (Ginocchio, C2 L17-25).
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.
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 9AM-6PM 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