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, see page 5, filed 1/2/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 1/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, as Grajawski et al. (US 5,727,100) fails to disclose an interrogation device configured to measure at least one property selected from mechanical strain and temperature along a length of the optical fiber. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grajawski et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 1/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are unpersuasive. Applicant argues the use of an interrogation device configured to measure at least one property selected from mechanical strain and temperature along a length of the optical fiber would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since Grajawski et al. fails to disclose an interrogation device. Specifically, Applicant argues an additional optical fiber connected to the optical fiber is not an interrogation device, as the additional optical fiber is used for communication purposes, and accordingly one of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to connect a measurement-type interrogation device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional optical fiber may reasonably be considered “an interrogation” device, as the additional optical fiber is capable of obtaining data from the optical fiber. This interpretation is consistent of the plain meaning of “interrogate” and proper under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As previously discussed in the Office Action mailed 7/2/25, devices and methods for measuring mechanical stress or the temperature of a length of optical fiber are known in the art, and provide the advantage of giving feedback about the operational nature of the optical fiber. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/25 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grajawski et al. (US 5,727,100).
Re. Claims 1, 11, and 12, Grajawski et al. discloses a method for the installation of an overhead electrical cable 1 comprising a strength member assembly supporting an electrical conductor 22 and at least one optical fiber (e.g., optical fiber in tube 2) operatively disposed along a length of the strength member assembly, the method comprising the steps of: supporting the overhead electrical cable 1 on a plurality of support towers (Fig. 1; col. 1 lines 65-67; col. 2 lines 1-4 and 30-33); removing a portion of the electrical conductor 22 from an end segment of the strength member assembly (Figs. 1-2; col. 2 lines 45-50); securing a gripping assembly 3 to the end segment of the strength member assembly, wherein a portion of the end segment extends past the gripping assembly 3 (Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 56-64); separating an end portion of the optical fiber away from the portion of the end segment of the strength member that extends past the gripping assembly 4 (Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 45-50); placing the separated end portion of the optical fiber through a fiber aperture 12 at a distal end of a connector 5, wherein the connector 5 comprises a fastener 6 (Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 65-67; col. 3 lines 1-11); securing the connector 5 to the gripping assembly 3 (Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 65-66); crimping a conductive sleeve 18 over the connector 5 and over the electrical conductor 22 (Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 26-37); and operatively connecting an interrogation device (e.g., additional optical fiber) to the optical fiber (col. 3 lines 12-14).
However, Grajawski et al. fails to disclose the interrogation device is configured to measure at least one property selected from mechanical strain and temperature along a length of the optical fiber.
Devices and methods for measuring mechanical stress or the temperature of a length of optical fiber are known in the art, and provide the advantage of giving feedback about the operational nature of the optical fiber. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 2, Grajawski et al. renders obvious the method as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the gripping assembly comprises a collet having a collet bore that is disposed within a collet housing.
Collets comprising a collet bore are known in the art, and create effective sleeving arrangements, and for these reasons would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 3, Grajawski et al. renders obvious the method as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the step of securing the connector to the gripping assembly comprises threadably engaging the connector with the collet housing.
Threadable engagements are known in the prior art and create an effective removeable coupling arrangement as compared to the clamping securement seen in Grajawski et al., and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 4, Grajawski et al. renders obvious the method as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the optical fiber is disposed in a groove formed in an outer surface of the strength member.
The claimed fiber construction is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a cable for installation. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claims 5-9, Grajawski et al. renders obvious the method as discussed above, but fails to disclose the optical fiber is a coated optical fiber comprising a high-performance plastic coating surrounding the optical fiber and wherein the coating has a diameter of at least about 500 µm, more specifically at least about 700 µm, and wherein the plastic coating is a thermoplastic coating selected from a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) coating and a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) coating.
Optical fibers coated in a high-performance plastic coating to a given diameter are well known in the art, as the plastic coating protects the glass core of the optical fiber, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a high-performance coating for the optical fiber for this reason. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, the claimed diameter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, 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.
Finally, plastics such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) coating and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a coating of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re. Claim 10, Grajawski et al. renders obvious the method as discussed above, but fails to disclose the coated optical fiber is embedded in the strength member near an outer surface of the strength member.
The claimed fiber construction is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a cable for installation. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claims 13-14, Grajawski et al. renders obvious the method as discussed above. Grajawski et al. discloses and sealing the optical fiber within the connector 5 by placing a cap 14 over the fiber aperture 12, wherein the sealing step comprises inserting the separated end portion of the optical fiber into the connector 5, before placing the cap 14 over the fiber aperture 12 (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 7-11).
However, Grajawski et al. fails to disclose the steps of: detaching the interrogation device from the optical fiber;
Detaching measurement devices upon completion of use is known in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
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 R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 2/12/26