DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 210488074 U patent publication.
Regarding claim 1, the ‘074 publication discloses an optical fiber cable (Fig. 1) comprising: a core (central portion defined by a thumb sheath 20) including optical fibers (10) and a wrapping member (the thumb sheath 20) that wraps the optical fibers; a sheath (an outer sheath 40) housing the core; and a rip cord (21) disposed between the core and the sheath, wherein a recessed portion (grooves filled by a filling piece 22) is recessed inward in a radial direction of the core in the wrapping member, and at least a portion of the rip cord is disposed inside the recessed portion (as illustrated in Fig. 1), the wrapping member contacts at least one of the optical fibers (the wrapping member 20 fully embed the optical fibers 10), and the rip cord is not embedded in the sheath (the rip cords 21 are disposed in the filling piece 22).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 210488074 U patent publication in view of U.S. PGPub 2017/0153404 by Takeda et al.
Regarding claim 6, the ‘074 publication discloses a method comprising: forming a core (central portion defined by a thumb sheath 20) by wrapping optical fibers (10) with a wrapping member (20) such that the wrapping member contacts at least one of the optical fibers (the sheath embeds all of the optical fibers 10); a recessed portion (grooves filled by a filling piece 22) recessed inwards in a radial direction of the core is formed in the wrapping member, and the rip cord (21) is introduced into the recessed portion. The ‘074 publication does not specify a process of forming the rip cord in the cable. Takeda teaches a method of manufacturing an optical cable (1) using an extruder (Fig. 8), comprising passing the core through a core hole (guide hole 16A) of a nipple (16, Fig. 9); and passing a rip cord (8) through a rip cord hole (rip cord hole 16C) of the nipple, wherein while passing the core and the rip cord. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to using the guide hole during the extrusion process of the cable as suggested by Takeda, for the purpose of guiding the rip cord to a precise and desired location within the optical cable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed. Relevant prior art fails to teach or suggest a range of a recess ration and a relationship between the recess ratio of the recessed portion and the outer diameter of the sheath, and it is not considered obvious to an ordinary artisan to investigate and perform experimentations to determine the recess ratio, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention. Prior art such as Ono clearly bases any recess ratio exclusively on the diameter of the rip cord and independent of the cable diameter.
Claims 2-4, 7-9 are 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. Relevant prior art fails to teach or further suggest additional limitations including a pair of tensile strength members embedded in the sheath such that the core is disposed between one of the pair of tensile strength members and the other of the pair of tensile strength members, wherein in a transverse-sectional view orthogonal to a central axis of the core, the rip cord is disposed within a range of -45° to +450 around a center of the core with a neutral line connecting centers of the pair of tensile strength members; OR the core has an elliptical shape in a transverse-sectional view orthogonal to a central axis of the core, except for a portion in which the recessed portion is positioned, and the recessed portion is positioned on a major axis (i.e., longest diameter) of the core; OR a gap surrounded by the recessed portion and the sheath is positioned between the core and the sheath, and a dimension of the gap in the radial direction is smaller than a dimension of the gap in a circumferential direction of the core; OR a pair of tensile strength members embedded in the sheath such that the core is disposed between one of the pair of tensile strength members and the other of the pair of tensile strength members, and the rip cord overlaps at least one of the pair of tensile strength members in the radial direction; OR the recessed portion digs into the optical fibers; when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention. The ’074 publication is the closest prior art to the invention as claimed, but the physical differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are substantial and it is the examiner’s position additional modifications to arrive at the claimed limitations above would not have been obvious or reasonable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP5719052B1 discloses an optical cable having an oval core.
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 CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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 at (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 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights