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 remarks, filed 6/16/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang et al. (CN 108594387 A) in view of Debban et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0132935) and further in view of Pavan et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2008/0304798 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein wall” should read “wherein a wall”, “wherein thickness” should read “wherein a thickness”, “protective layer” should read “a protective layer”, “armor layer” should read “an armor layer”, “outer cable jacket” should read “an outer cable jacket”, “the form” should read “a form”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 4, 5, 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 108594387 A) in view of Debban et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0132952) and further in view of Pavan et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2008/0304798 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘387 teaches an optical fiber cable (fig. 1) comprising:
a. a central core comprising a plurality of sub units (40) enclosing a plurality of optical fibers (30, ribbon fiber);
b. an armor layer (70) enclosing the central core;
c. a protective layer (10) located between the armor layer and the central core; and
d. an outer cable jacket (80);
wherein thickness of protective layer is in a range of 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm (pg. 4 of translation), the protective layer is a non-extruded material (tape) restrictively wrapped (contacts loose tubes) around the sub units; wherein thickness of armor layer is in a range of 0.07 mm to 0.6 mm (pg. 3 of translation); wherein thickness of outer cable jacket is in a range of 0.8 mm to 4.0 mm (pg. 4 of translation).
‘387 is silent to wherein wall thickness of the sub units is in a range of 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm and wherein the optical fibers are arranged in the form of intermittently bonded ribbons (IBRs).
‘952 teaches that using intermittently (partially) bonded ribbons allows manufacture of cables with higher fiber packing density than cables incorporating traditional flat ribbons while still allowing for high-productivity mass fusion splicing of the ribbons during cable installation and allow ribbons to completely fill a space inside a round cable subunit tube. In contrast, a rectangular stack of flat ribbons leaves empty spaces within the subunit tube (par. 0014).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of ‘387 to make the ribbons within any of the sub units to be intermittently bonded so as to allow for higher fiber packing density, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
The previous combination is silent to wherein wall thickness of the sub units is in a range of 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm.
‘798 teaches wherein at least one of said plurality of sub units has wall thickness in a range of 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm (par. 0020, 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of the previous combination to make the wall thickness of the sub units is in a range of 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm as taught by ‘798 so as to allow for adequate protection of the fiber while also allowing for adequate flexibility of the optical fibers thus allowing for a more versatile cable as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 4, ‘387 teaches that the armor layer is a metal belt (pg. 3 of translation) but is silent to it being selected from the group consisting of corrugated steel tape, aluminum tape, spiral interlocking steel, and spiral interlocking aluminum.
However, it is well known in the art to use one of the aforementioned materials as a metal belt so as to allow for adequate protection from external environmental factors while still remaining flexible.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of the previous combination to make the metal belt as claimed thus creating a more robust optical cable as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 5, ‘387 teaches wherein the protective layer material is selected from the group consisting of barrier tape, water swellable tape, polyester tape, aramid yarn, IGFR yarns, polymeric yarns, and combinations thereof (10 blocks water thus is a barrier tape).
In Re claim 8, the previous combination teaches the optical fiber but is silent to at least a strength member partially or fully embedded in the outer cable jacket.
However, it is well known in the art to embed strength members in outer cable jackets so as to allow for protection of the optical fibers from longitudinal stresses such as pulling during installation and also allow bending of the cable perpendicular to the plane containing the strength members.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of the previous combination to embed at least one strength member in the outer cable jacket so as to allow for protection of the optical fibers from longitudinal stresses such as pulling during installation and also allow bending of the cable perpendicular to the plane containing the strength members as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 9, ‘387 teaches a strength member as claimed (60 or 90).
In Re claim 10, ‘387 teaches coating (50) as claimed.
In Re claim 11, the previous combination teaches the cable of claim 1 and the strength member 60 or 90 (pg. 3 of translation of ‘387), but is silent to the strength member being selected from the group consisting of steel wires, aramid reinforced plastic (ARP), fiber reinforced plastic (FRP), glass reinforced plastic (GRP), aramid yarn, and impregnated glass fiber reinforcement (IGFR). However, it is well known in the art to make the rope or reinforcement of ‘387 to be made up of one of the aforementioned materials so as to allow for adequate support of the cable.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of the previous combination to make the strength member to be one of the claimed options so as to allow for or adequate support of the cable as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 108594387 A) in view of Debban et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0132952) and further in view of Pavan et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2008/0304798 A1) and further in view of Morishita (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0148883 A1).
The previous combination teaches the cable of claim 1 and a flame retardant oil paste (20 and 50), but is silent to a water absorbent material as claimed.
‘883 teaches a filler gel that uses both a water absorbing agent and a flame retardant (par. 0076).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of the previous combination to use a water absorbing agent in the oil of ‘387 to create gel that adequately prevents flames from damaging the optical fibers housed therein thus creating a more robust cable as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
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 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 CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights