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.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 7/1/26 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended and claims 3 – 6 canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 7 – 11 are pending.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the interpretation of the term “superabsorbent” have been considered, but not found persuasive. While Applicant asserts that “the limitation "superabsorbent material," is a well-known term of at [sic] to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and such materials are generally well known” (p. 4 of the Remarks), Applicant does not provide any evidence for such assertion. In particular, Applicant cites absorption capacity within a wide range of 60 – 600 g/g, but does not provide any evidence that such range is a common distinction of “superabsorbent” materials, as opposed to just absorbent materials.
Applicant's amendments have obviated the previously-raised rejections under 35 USC 102 and necessitated new rejections under 35 USC 103(a), as detailed below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the amended claims versus the Debban and Hu references have been fully considered, but the arguments are not persuasive.
(a) As for the Debban reference, Applicant quotes para. 0020 (which states that “the superabsorbent liquid is applied directly to one or more fibers in the rollable ribbon 500 by dipping the rollable ribbon 500 in the superabsorbent liquid after the rollable ribbon 500 is manufactured”) and asserts that “Debban dips the entirety of the rollable ribbon 500 in the superabsorbent material, or the superabsorbent material is applied directly to the ribbon 500” (2nd complete para. on p. 5, emphasis added). As evident, Applicant frivolously added the words “the entirety of” and limited the scope of Debban’s teachings, while saying “Said another way”.
The Examiner begs to differ. Application’s addition of “the entirety of” to improperly limit the scope of Debban’s teachings is anything but “Said another way”.
(b) As for the Hu reference, Applicant asserts that “Hu does not contemplate a "coating" of any superabsorbent material on at least a surface of the intermittently bonded optical fiber ribbon” (1st complete para. on p. 6, emphasis added). However, the claims do not recite the word “surface”, let alone limiting the scope to superabsorbent material on at least a surface of the intermittently bonded optical fiber ribbon. Yet again, Applicant’s argues about features that are not recited by the claims.
Applicant further makes a conclusionary statement (2nd complete para. on p. 6) that Hu does not meet any of the choices recited as (i) – (iii). However, an even cursory inspection of the reference and Fig. 3 in it shows that Hu meets choice (ii), because a superabsorbent material is mixed into the bond matrix 1.2 and, hence, the superabsorbent material coats at least a part of at least a bonded region 1.2 of at least a fiber 1.1 of the optical fiber ribbon
Independent claim 1 is rejected as provided below, and so are the dependent claims for which Applicant does not provide any additional substantial arguments and which therefore stand or fall together with the respective independent claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (CN 114384657 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hu discloses (Figs. 1 – 8; Abstract; para. 0034 and 0051 – 0069) an optical fiber ribbon 1 comprising a plurality of optical fibers 1.1 (para. 0053), wherein at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers of the plurality of fibers 1.1 are bonded to each other by a matrix material (comprising curable resin, such as “acrylic ester acrylic ester monomer 31.5wt %, thickening agent 3wt%, auxiliary agent 1.5wt %, photoinitiator 4wt%” at para. 0056), and wherein at least a region 1.2 of the optical fiber ribbon 1 is selectively coated with at least a superabsorbent material, wherein the superabsorbent material is acrylate polymer included in the matrix material (“the waterproof adhesive resin contains sodium polyacrylate with mass fraction of 24wt %” at para. 0054; see the Section “Claims Interpretation” in the Office Action of 4/1/26 regarding the interpretation of the limitation “superabsorbent material”).
Hu teaches (Figs. 3, 4, 7, and 8) that at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers are intermittently bonded (at regions 1.2), wherein the pair of adjacent optical fibers comprise at least a bonded region 1.2 and at least an unbonded region (between regions 1.2).
Hu teaches (e.g., Abstract; para. 0040, 0053, and 0054; claim 1) that the superabsorbent material is added to the matrix material and, thus, considers that the superabsorbent material coats at least a part of at least a bonded region 1.2 of at least a fiber 1.1 of the optical fiber ribbon (recited choice (ii). As seen in Fig. 3, the superabsorbent material covers only bonded regions 1.2 and does not coat the entire ribbon.
Finally, Hu teaches that the superabsorbent material (within bonded regions 1.2) is uniformly distributed along the longitudinal axis of the ribbon (“Preferably, the waterproof flexible optical fibre belt, the adjacent single-core optical fibre of the resin connecting part are uniformly distributed in the optical fibre axial direction, the resin connecting part between the multiple groups of adjacent single-core optical fibre has the same pitch” at para. 0014, emphasis added; also para. 0039, 0053, and 0065). For a uniform distribution, an aggregate quantity of the superabsorbent material coated in a section of a pre-defined first length of the ribbon is substantially similar to another section of the same pre-defined first length of the ribbon.
Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches (Figs. 1 and 5; Abstract) that the superabsorbent material comprises a colored dye/pigment (para. 0056 and 0058).
Regarding claim 10, Hu expressly teaches (para. 0054) that the superabsorbent material (C) is comprised in the matrix material, the latter coated on the regions 1.2. Hence, the superabsorbent material (C) is coated on at least a part of at least a bonded region 1.2 and a top portion of the superabsorbent material is applied over a bottom portion (proximal to the fibers) of the matrix material.
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches (Figs. 1 and 5; Abstract) an optical fiber cable comprising at least one optical fiber ribbon 1 detailed above for claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Hoshino et al (US 2017/0299829 A1).
Regarding claim 2, while Hu illustrates (Figs. 3, 4, 7, and 8), by way of example but not limitation, only embodiments with intermittent bonding on optical fibers, Hoshino discloses (Figs. 3 – 10; Abstract; para. 0036 – 0067) an optical fiber ribbon comprising optical fibers 17 that are bonded to one another by a matrix material 15. Hoshino illustrates both an embodiment (Fig. 10) with only intermittent bonding and embodiments (Figs. 3, 6, 8, and 9) wherein at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers 17 are continuously bonded (“In the optical fiber ribbon, the adjacent optical fiber strands are bonded using a bonding section in which the same are continuously bonded along the entire length thereof and a bonding section in which the same are intermittently bonded at prescribed intervals” in the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical fiber ribbon in Hu can be modified, in accordance with the teachings of Hoshino, to have at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers that are continuously bonded. The use of continuously bonded fibers has the benefits of locally improving mechanical strength of the optical fiber ribbon in order to improve the workability of inserting the optical fiber ribbon into a surrounding loose tube, militate stress caused by a surrounding loose tube (para. 0052 and 0056 of Hoshino), and enable high packaging density by accommodating the shape of an inner space defined by the surrounding loose tube (as shown in Figs. 5 and 7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Ly et al (US 2019/0219783 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hu states (Abstract; para. 0053) that the disclosed optical fiber ribbon 1 with intermittently bonded fibers 1.1 is flexible, but does not teach that such optical fiber ribbon can be configured to be rollable. However, Ly discloses (Figs. 2 and 3; Abstract; para. 0025 – 0027) an optical fiber ribbon 40 with intermittently bonded fibers 42 and teaches that the optical fiber ribbon 40 is configured to be rollable (as shown in Figs. 3A and 3B). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical fiber ribbon 1 in Hu can be configured, in accordance with the teachings of Ly, to be rollable. The motivation is that “a more densely configured unit shape” can be achieved (para. 0025 of Ly) so that more fiber can be fitted into a given cross-section of an optical cable comprising rollable optical fiber ribbons (para. 0027 and 0029).
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debban et al (US 2020/0132952 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Debban discloses (Figs. 5 and 6; Abstract; para. 0013, 0014, 0019 – 0025) an optical fiber ribbon 500 comprising a plurality of optical fibers 510a-510n (para. 0019), wherein at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers of the plurality of fibers 510a-510n are bonded to each other by a matrix material 520a-520n (partial bonds that are denoted as 230 and detailed in Fig. 2; “As shown in FIG. 5, optical fibers 510a . . . 510n (collectively designated as 510) are arranged as a rollable ribbon 500 with partial bonds 520a . . . 520n (collectively designated herein as 520 or “matrix 520”) between the optical fibers 510, thereby creating large numbers of interstitial spaces in the rollable ribbon 500. Stated differently, the partial bonds 520a . . . 520n create a matrix 520 and the optical fibers 510 are partially bonded with the matrix 520 to form the rollable ribbon 500.” at para. 0019), and wherein at least a region 530 of the optical fiber ribbon 500 is selectively coated with at least a superabsorbent material, wherein the superabsorbent material is acrylate polymer (“the embodiment of rollable ribbon 500 in FIG. 5 comprises a water-swellable material 530 that is applied directly to the rollable ribbon 500 to safeguard against water penetration” at para. 0019; “the water-swellable material 530 comprises a superabsorbent powder, such as a sodium polyacrylate, a potassium acrylate, a potassium acrylamide, or any combination thereof. For embodiments that employ superabsorbent powders, the superabsorbent powder (e.g., sodium polyacrylate, potassium acrylate, potassium acrylamide, etc.) may be first suspended in a water-based solution (or other liquid-based solution)” at para. 0021, emphasis added).
Debban teaches (Figs. 2 and 5; para. 0014 and 0019) that at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers are intermittently bonded (at partial bonds 520a-520n), wherein the pair of adjacent optical fibers comprise at least a bonded region 520 and at least an unbonded region (between regions 520) (“As shown in FIG. 5, optical fibers 510a . . . 510n (collectively designated as 510) are arranged as a rollable ribbon 500 with partial bonds 520a . . . 520n (collectively designated herein as 520 or “matrix 520”) between the optical fibers 510, thereby creating large numbers of interstitial spaces in the rollable ribbon 500. Stated differently, the partial bonds 520a . . . 520n create a matrix 520 and the optical fibers 510 are partially bonded with the matrix 520 to form the rollable ribbon 500” at para. 0019, emphasis added).
Further, Debban teaches that “the superabsorbent liquid is applied directly to one or more fibers in the rollable ribbon 500 by dipping the rollable ribbon 500 in the superabsorbent liquid after the rollable ribbon 500 is manufactured” (para. 0020). The following is evident from the above-quoted passage:
(i) Debban considers that a superabsorbent material coats, in the most general case, at least a part of at least an unbonded region (between bonded regions 520) and at least a part of at least a bonded region 520 of at least a fiber of the optical fiber ribbon 500 (recited choice (iii).
(ii) Since any ribbon 500 comprises at least two fibers 510a-510n, Debban does not require complete coverage (“one or more fibers”) and renders obvious that the superabsorbent material can only partially coat the ribbon 500, e.g., by partially dipping of the ribbon 500 into the superabsorbent liquid. It would be well within ordinary skill in the art to optimize a relative coverage area that provides enough water protection while minimizing consumption of the superabsorbent material.
Finally, Debban does not limit the longitudinal density distribution of the coated superabsorbent material to uniform or non-uniform distributions. For a uniform distribution (which is a suitable/workable choice for a longitudinally uniform ribbon as in Debban), an aggregate quantity of the superabsorbent material coated in a section of a pre-defined first length of the ribbon is substantially similar to another section of the same pre-defined first length of the ribbon
Regarding claim 7, Debban teaches (Fig. 5) that the optical fiber ribbon 500 is a rollable ribbon (as shown in Fig. 2; “FIG. 5 is a diagram showing one embodiment of optical fibers arranged as a rollable ribbon, with a water-swellable coating on one or more fibers of the rollable ribbon” at para. 0019).
Regarding claim 10, Debban expressly teaches (Fig. 5; para. 0020) that the superabsorbent material (C) can be coated (by dipping or spraying) on the optical fibers 510a-510n either before or after the optical fiber ribbon 500 is formed (by intermittently bonding the optical fibers 510a-510n at the particle bonds 520a-520n with the matrix material). In the latter case, the superabsorbent material is applied over the matrix material.
Regarding claim 11, Debban teaches (Fig. 6; para. 0023 and 0024) an optical fiber cable 600 comprising at least one optical fiber ribbon 500 detailed above for claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debban in view of Hoshino.
Regarding claim 2, while Debban illustrates (Figs. 2 and 5), by way of example but not limitation, only embodiments with intermittently bonded optical fibers, Hoshino discloses (Figs. 3 – 10; Abstract; para. 0036 – 0067) an optical fiber ribbon comprising optical fibers 17 that are bonded to one another by a matrix material 15. Hoshino illustrates both an embodiment (Fig. 10) with only intermittent bonding and embodiments (Figs. 3, 6, 8, and 9) wherein at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers 17 are continuously bonded (“In the optical fiber ribbon, the adjacent optical fiber strands are bonded using a bonding section in which the same are continuously bonded along the entire length thereof and a bonding section in which the same are intermittently bonded at prescribed intervals” in the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical fiber ribbon in Debban can be modified, in accordance with the teachings of Hoshino, to have at least a pair of adjacent optical fibers that are continuously bonded. The inclusion of continuously bonded fibers provides the benefits of locally improving mechanical strength of the optical fiber ribbon in order to improve the workability of inserting the optical fiber ribbon into a surrounding loose tube, mitigate stress caused by a surrounding loose tube (para. 0052 and 0056 of Hoshino), and enable high packaging density by accommodating the shape of an inner space defined by the surrounding loose tube (as shown in Figs. 5 and 7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debban in view of Hu.
Regarding claim 9, Debban does not teach that the superabsorbent material can comprise a colored dye. However, Hu discloses an optical fiber ribbon comprising bonded optical fibers 1.1, wherein at least a region 1.2 of the optical fiber ribbon is selectively coated with a least a superabsorbent material (sodium polyacrylate; para. 0054 – 0059; see the Section “Claims Interpretation” regarding the interpretation of the limitation “superabsorbent material”), wherein the superabsorbent material comprises a colored dye/pigment (para. 0056 and 0058).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the superabsorbent material in Debban can comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Hu, a colored dye/pigment so that color identification can be provided without any additional coatings/layers and size increase (para. 0024 of Hu).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights