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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed 16 January 2024.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (USPGPub 2020/0041739, from hereinafter “Sato”) in view of Yamamoto et al. (USPGPub 2016/0291278, from hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches an optical fiber cable (optical fiber cable 10) in which an optical fiber ribbon formed by arranging a plurality of optical fibers in parallel is mounted in an internal space (see paragraph 30), wherein a core portion of the optical fiber is made of pure silica glass (glass fiber bodies paragraph 19), wherein the optical fibers constitute an intermittent connection type optical fiber ribbon including an intermittent connection portion (connection part 22, see paragraphs 22 and 31) in which a connection portion to which an adhesive resin (ribbon coating 24 made of ultraviolet curing resin) is applied and a non-connection portion to which the adhesive resin is not applied are alternately provided between adjacent optical fibers (see paragraph 22), wherein the optical fiber ribbon has a ratio of a total adhesion length to which the adhesive resin is applied to a total length between all the optical fibers of 40% or more per a unit length of the optical fiber ribbon (see paragraph 33, regarding 8 pieces of the intermittent ribbons 20 of 12 cores for greater than 40%), and wherein an occupancy ratio of the optical fiber ribbon to a cross-sectional area of the internal space is 30% or more and 40% or less (see paragraph 18, which explains that the occupancy ratio is equal to or greater than 25% or equal to or less than 65%) (see paragraphs 22, 27-30, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 1, although Sato teaches the structure of the optical fiber cable, Sato does not specifically teach that an effective cross-sectional area of the core portion at a wavelength of 1550 nm is 110 µm² or more and 150 µm² or less.
Yamamoto teaches an optical fiber cable that allows for a formula to calculate the effective cross-sectional area of the core portion at 1550 nm (see paragraphs 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a formula as in Yamomoto to arrive at the well-known cross-sectional area of the core portion so that the optical fiber cable operates at an optimal level.
Regarding claim 2, Sato further teaches wherein the intermittent connection portion (connection part 22) is provided for every two fibers in the optical fiber ribbon (see Figs.2A and 2B, paragraphs 30-31).
Regarding claim 3, although Sato does not specifically teach per the unit length of the optical fiber ribbon, a ratio of the total adhesion length to which the adhesive resin is applied to the total length between all the optical fibers is 73% or more, Sato does teach an about 66% ratio, where the subunit 33 illustrated in FIG. 1 is a 96-core unit formed by, for example, collecting 8 pieces of the intermittent ribbons 20 of 12 cores and twisting the collected intermittent ribbons 20 in a spiral shape, and an optical unit 30 formed by, for example, collecting 18 pieces of the subunits 33 and twisting the collected subunits 33 in a spiral shape is accommodated in the cable core 11. The intermittent ribbon 20 is more flexible than a general ribbon, and when the optical unit 30 is formed of the intermittent ribbon, an occupancy ratio of the optical fiber 21 can be increased, (see paragraph 33) hence the percentage can be increased based on the length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a higher percentage so that the occupancy ratio can be optimized.
Regarding claim 5, Sato further teaches wherein the optical fiber cable (optical fiber cable 10) is a slotless type optical fiber cable (see abstract) including a cable core formed by twisting a plurality of the optical fiber ribbons and a cable jacket (cable jacket 12) provided around the cable core (see abstract, paragraphs 17-19, paragraphs 28, 33 Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (USPGPub 2020/0041739, from hereinafter “Sato”) as modified by Yamamoto et al. (USPGPub 2016/0291278, from hereinafter “Yamamoto”), and further in view of Sato et al. (USPGPub 2020/0183111, from hereinafter “Sato111”).
Regarding claim 4, Sato as modified by Yamamoto fails to teach, wherein the optical fiber cable is a ribbon slot type optical fiber cable having a slot rod.
Sato111 teaches a slot rod 3 (see Fig 1, paragraph 40) as part of an optical fiber cable1A with an optical unit 2, which is an assembly of optical fiber ribbons 20 and also comprises a cable jacket 4 covering the outside of the slot rod 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slot rod within the optical fiber cable as a means of stability and cutting down on macro bend loss which is favorable for a more efficient system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Patent No. 7,936,957 to Puzan et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M CAPUTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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.
/LISA M CAPUTO/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874