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 (“Remarks”), filed 30 June 206, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks at Pg 6 Para 2) with respect to the objections to Claims 17-19 under 37 CFR § 1.75 are persuasive.
The objections to Claim 17-19 has been withdrawn. Please note that a new rejection in light of Applicant’s amendment is included herein.
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks at Pg 6 Para 3) with respect to the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-5 and 7-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) in view of WIPO Internation Publication WO 2010/080343 A1 to Bringuier et al. ("WO1") are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that WO1 does not describe one or more tensile yarns disposed above the deformable layer as set forth in Claims 1 and 14, and therefore cannot achieve the interlocking coupling mechanism of the present invention (see Remarks at Pg 7 Para 4-Pg 8 Para 1).
As set forth in the previous Office Action (“OA”), mailed 01 April 2026, the tensile yarns (140) of WO1 are located above the deformable layer (120), as shown in Fig 2. Further, the examiner notes that there is no claim language directed to an interlocking coupling mechanism.
Applicant argues that WO1 does not describe the center of the tape's overlap portion and the center of an adjacent tensile yarn separated by an angular distance of ≥ 60° at a given cross section as set forth in Claim 1 or the individual tensile yarns maintaining a minimum angular distance of ≥ 30° relative to one another with respect to the center of the optical fiber cable as set forth in Claim 14 (see Remarks at Pg 8 Para 2-5).
The previous rejection identified the components of WO1 analogous to the deformable layer overlap portion (121) and the tensile yarns (140), stating that Fig.2 of WO1 shows the claimed angular constraints (see OA at Paras 12 and 21). Please note annotated Fig. 2 of WO1 below, identifying the elements and the relative angular relationships.
PNG
media_image1.png
1001
1200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the limitations of Claims 7-10, 12, 17, and 19 are not described by WO1 (see Remarks at Pg 8 Paras 4 and 6).
Applicant has not described how the properties of these limitations are not inherent to the description of WO1, as set forth in the previous rejection (see OA at Paras 17-19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO1.
Regarding Claim 1, WO1 describes an optical fiber cable (100, see Figs 1-2) comprising:
an optical fiber (112);
a buffer layer (150) that surrounds the optical fiber to define a tight buffered optical fiber (see [054]);
a deformable layer (120) wrapped around the tight buffered optical fiber (see Figs 1-2), wherein the deformable layer has two longitudinal overlap ends that defines an overlap portion (121);
one or more tensile yarns (140) disposed above the deformable layer (see Fig 2), wherein a center of the overlap portion of the deformable layer and a center of a tensile yarn of the one or more tensile yarns is separated by a predefined angular distance with respect to the center of the cable at at least one cross section along a length of the optical fiber cable (see Fig 2),
wherein the predefined angular distance is greater than or equal to 60 Degrees (60°) (shown as 90° in Fig 2); and
a sheath (130) that surrounds the deformable layer and the one or more tensile yarns (see Figs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 2, WO1 describes the one or more tensile yarns comprising at least 1 yarn and at most 6 yarns (2 yarns as shown in Figs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, WO1 describes the deformable layer as a water blocking tape (WBT) (see [019], [040]).
Regarding Claim 4, WO1 describes the width of the overlap portion as less than 4 millimeters (mm) ([041] describes the cable having a diameter of 5 mm; such a dimension with the cable configuration shown in Fig 2 must inherently have an overlap portion less than 4 mm).
Regarding Claim 5, WO1 describes the angular distance between the centers of two or more tensile yarns of the one or more tensile yarns as greater than or equal to 30° with respect to center of the optical fiber cable (shown as 180° in Fig 2).
Regarding Claims 7 and 10-12, WO1 does not describe the particular claimed properties of the fiber or cable. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 8, WO1 describes the center of the overlap portion of the deformable layer and the center of the tensile yarn of the one or more tensile yarns as separated by ≥ 90° angular distance with respect to center of the optical fiber cable at at least one cross section of the optical fiber cable (shown as 90° in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 9, WO1 describes a diameter of the optical fiber cable as less than 6 mm (see [041], describing a diameter of 5 mm).
Regarding Claim 13, WO1 describes the predefined angular distance as measured in one of, a clockwise direction and an anti-clockwise direction (see Fig 2, where the measured angular distance is 90° when measured in either direction).
Regarding Claim 14, WO1 describes optical fiber cable (100, see Figs 1-2) comprising:
an optical fiber (112);
a buffer layer (150) that surrounds the optical fiber to define a tight buffered optical fiber (see [054]);
a deformable layer (120) wrapped around the tight buffered optical fiber (112),
wherein the deformable layer has two longitudinal overlap ends (see Fig 2) that defines an overlap portion (121);
one or more tensile yarns (140) disposed above the deformable layer, wherein a centre of the overlap portion of the deformable layer and a centre of a tensile yarn of the one or more tensile yarns is separated by a predefined angular distance with respect to the centre of the cable at at least one cross section along a length of the optical fiber cable (see Fig 2),
wherein the angular distance between the centers of two or more tensile yarns of the one or more tensile yarns is greater than or equal to 30° with respect to centre of the optical fiber cable (shown as 180° in Fig 2);
and a sheath (130) that surrounds the deformable layer (106) and the one or more tensile yarns (108a-108n).
Regarding Claim 15, WO1 describes the width of the overlap portion as less than 4 mm ([0041] describes the cable having a diameter of 5 mm; such a dimension with the cable configuration shown in Fig 2 must inherently have an overlap portion less than 4 mm).
Regarding Claim 16, WO1 describes the predefined angular distance as greater than or equal to 60° (shown as 180° in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 17, WO1 describes the center of the overlap portion of the deformable layer and the center of the tensile yarn of the one or more tensile yarns as separated by ≥ 90° angular distance with respect to center of the optical fiber cable at at least one cross section of the optical fiber cable (shown as 90° in Fig 2).
Regarding Claims 18-19, WO1 does not describe the particular claimed properties of the fiber or cable. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
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.
Claim 6 describes the tight buffered optical fiber having a tight buffer length that incorporates an additional excess length over a total length of the sheath in a range of 0.04% to 0.2% relative to the length of the sheath.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
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 JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights