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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“Nilsson teaches a system with an optical cable structure with fibers 12, a solid corrugated steel armor layer 18 and a ripcord 20 for removing the armor. In Nilsson, the reference is directed to and includes the use of a pulling eye as shown in Figures 2-6 which is attached at an end of the cable. Nilsson teaches that the present cable and associated pulling eye meets "the pulling eye had to be of such size that it could pass through bends having a predetermined minimum radius. A standard size requirement for pulling eyes is that a cable with an outer diameter of 0.7 inch must pass through a 1-inch sub-duct with a 24-inch bend radius." As taught by Nilsson, the pulling eye is a solid construction that extends longitudinally with the fiber, and that has a gripping body portion and a crimping sleeve portion. The pulling eye is therefore not a flexible element, but still needs to meet the bend requirements outlined above for the cable.
Applicant therefore submits that one skilled in the art would not look to modify Nilsson with Peterson as suggested by the Office Action as Nilsson already meets its stated requirements in terms of bend for the cable, and there is therefore no motivation to combine the references.
Furthermore, one skilled in the art would not look to make the cable of Nilsson more flexible, as the overall flexibility and bend for the cable may be limited by the rigid pulling eye that is attached to it for running the cable.
Finally, the pulling eye includes a cable crimping sleeve with an inner diameter that engages and crimps onto the cable outer diameter to engage the cable outer jacket 22, e.g. "[o]nce the strength members are gripped in place in the gripping body, a number of crimps can be placed on the crimping sleeve to engage the outer jacket of the optical fiber cable". As such, one skilled in the art would not modify or replace the underlying corrugated and solid armor, which is providing underlying strength for crimping of the pulling eye onto the polyethylene outer jacket 22 of Nilsson, with a spiral tube armor as claimed as there may be variations in jacket compression with a structural change to the cable.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The invention suggested by Nilsson in view of Peterson, the body of the cable (10, illustrated in Fig. 1A) and the pulling eye assembly (26) are two distinct components and the modifications suggested by Peterson does not apply to both of these components. Specifically, Peterson suggests a fiber optic cable having a non-interlocking armor (14) that is a spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring of the spiral tube. The non-interlocking armor (14) by Peterson is equivalent to and a suggested replacement for a corrugated steel armor layer (18) in Nilsson’s cable body (10) in order to improve its flexibility, and the modification suggested by Peterson does not change the structure of the pulling eye assembly in Nilsson’s invention and nor is it intended to make the pulling eye assembly more flexible as applicant alleges. Additionally, the fact that both the pulling eye assembly and the body of cable must pass through bends inside ducts as stated in Nilsson would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the body of the cable more flexible so that it can pass through the bends more easily while the pulling eye assembly is inside the ducts, or after the pulling eye assembly has exited the ducts. Finally, Nilsson states that the pulling eye assembly provides a means to gripping the cable and its strength components so that stresses would not be exerted on the optical fibers while the cable was pulled through the ducts. In this regard, Nilsson uses a corrugated steel armor layer (18) as a strength and protective member, while Peterson’s non-interlocking armor (14) offers higher axial strength and crush protection, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found there is a reasonable expectation of success in replacing the corrugated steel armor layer with a more flexible, non-interlocking armor, as suggested by Peterson, to use with the pulling eye while maintaining the strength function required by the armor layer.
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) 1, 5, 11, 12, 21-23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,039,196 to Nilsson in view of U.S. PGPub 2018/0188464 by Peterson et al.
Regarding claims 1, 11, Nilsson teaches a fiber optic cable assembly comprising: an outer sheath (outer jacket 22); fiberglass reinforced panels (strength members 24 made of a dielectric material such as fiberglass); a pull material (metallic crimping sleeve 30 of a pulling eye assembly 26); an inner jacket (buffer tube 14); a strength material (radial strength yarn threads 16); non-interlocking armor (corrugated armor layer 18); and a tight buffer of optical fibers (optical fibers 12 carried in a gel filled in the buffer tube).
Nilsson teaches the optical fiber cable having the strength and armor layers as stated above but does not specify the material for the layers as claimed. Peterson also teaches an optical cable comprising fibers 20, a strengthening material 18 which can be aramid fibers, an armor 14 that can be a non-interlocking stainless steel tube and a spiral tube having a gap 22 between each spiraling ring. The benefit of using a non-interlocking armor is that the bend radius is substantially smaller than a bend radius of an interlocked steel tube, and it is also much lighter and easier to work with. The strengthening material 18 can be aramid fibers which can absorb the tension needed to pull the inner cable and provide cushioning for the fibers 20, thus ensuring that the optical fibers do not stretch or bind within the cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nilsson’s invention by using aramid and spirally stainless steel for the strengthening and armor layers suggested by Peterson for these same reason and advantages.
Regarding claim 5, Nilsson further teaches the fiberglass reinforced panels (24) are incorporated into the outer sheath to increase a rigidity of the outer sheath (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 12, Nilsson the tight buffer of optical fibers is one or more optical fibers (12), a core and a cladding layer (each inherent to the optical fibers 12).
Regarding claim 21, Nilsson further teaches the armor is positioned between the pull material and the tight buffer of optical fibers (the pull material, by way of a crimping sleeve portion 30, is outside the armor layer 18, while the buffer tube 14 is inside the amor layer 18).
Regarding claim 22, Nilsson further teaches an inner surface of the armor is in continuous contact with an outer surface of the strength material (the armor layer 18 is immediately outside the strength material 16).
Regarding claim 23, Peterson further suggest that the armor is non- interlocking, and the reason is using a non-interlocking armor is that the bend radius is substantially smaller than a bend radius of an interlocked steel tube.
Regarding claim 25, Peterson further suggest that the spiral tube has a gap between each spiraling ring, the gap sized to be 0.05-1 mm (¶[0021]), which is used to allow the fiber optic cable to have a predetermined bend radius range.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson and Peterson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2011/0268400 by Lovie et al.
Regarding claims 2, 3, Nilsson teaches the optical cable having the outer sheath but not an OFNP rating for outdoor applications or a UV resistant property. Lovie also teaches that a cable jacket 13 is formed from a halogen-free flame retardant (HFFR) material. The cable jacket 13 may also contain other additives, such as nucleating agents, flame retardants, smoke retardants, antioxidants, UV absorbers, and/or plasticizers. In particular, the cable jacket 13 enables the present data-center cable 10 to achieve a plenum flame rating (e.g., NFPA 262, OFNP, and/or CSA FT 6). Accordingly, the present data-center cables are typically suitable for installation in a plenum and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nilsson’s invention by using the material and additive specified by Lovie to manufacture the outer sheath for the same reason.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson and Peterson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2007/0183729 by Chase et al.
Regarding claims 7, 8, Nilsson teaches the optical fiber cable having the inner jacket but not a flame-retardant property or color-coding for the buffer as claimed. Chase teaches a flame retardant UV cured buffered optical fibers and buffer composition, wherein tight-buffer coatings are cured upon the optical fibers are visually opaque and colored. ([0048]) These design features impart the desired flame retardancy to the tight-buffer coated optical fiber and allow fibers to be identified readily, and facilitate visual inspection of the application of the tight-buffer coatings, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nilsson’s invention by using the same buffer composition in the optical fiber cable for the same reasons and advantages.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson and Peterson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2020/0192049 by Kumar et al.
Regarding claims 13-18, Nilsson teaches the optical fiber cable as stated above but does not specify detailed parameter on minimum bending radius, max tensile strength, crush resistance or load, or installation temperature. Kumar teaches an optical fiber cable having various characteristics towards temperature, pressure, stress, strain and the like, specifically its short/long term tensile strengths, impact strength, crush resistance, torsion, minimum bending radius, negative temperature cycling test. Although Kumar does not state specific number claimed, these characteristics are considered result effective variables used to limit bending loss and edge fiber failures, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to determine an optimum or workable value or range of values of each characteristics appropriate for the application and protection of the optical fibers as suggested by Kumar. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USQP 233, 35 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson and Peterson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,448,670 to Blew et al.
Regarding claim 24, Nilsson teaches the optic fiber cable having the outer sheath (22) but does not specify whether an outer surface of the outer sheath defines an elongated cross-sectional shape. Blew teaches a fiber optic cable comprising an outer jacket (35) with a pair of diametrically opposed strength members (34) embedded therein, an armor layer (32) surrounding a buffer tube (21) with one or more optical fibers (33) contained therein, and wherein the outer jacket has a generally elliptical outer cross-sectional shape with a major transverse axis generally aligned with an imaginary line defined between the pair of longitudinal strength members (34). The placement of the strength members 34 on opposite sides, as well as the elliptical shape of the jacket (35) allows the cable (20) to have a relatively high degree of flexibility so that the cable may be more easily handled, especially during installation (col. 7, para. 1). Similarly to Nilsson, the flexibility is a desired property of the fiber optic cable for installing the cable through ducts or conduits (Fig. 2, Blew), and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nilsson’s invention, by using the outer jacket having the elliptical/elongated cross-sectional shape, as suggested by Blew, for the same advantage of high flexibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Prior art fails to teach or suggest an outer pull material is a plurality of aramid fibers, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the base claim. Nilsson relies on a metallic pulling eye and fiberglass strength members for pulling, and further modification to arrive at the claimed invention 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. USP 6101305 discloses a cable with an elongated cross-sectional shape and a pulling eye.
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 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 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 2883