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 .
Detailed Action.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in response/amendment is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant is kindly asked to submitted any prior art documents in the information Disclosure Statement(s), if any, to be considered and made of record.
Claim Objection
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Further, Applicant is kindly advised, in response please present claims without any numerical labels in the claims for clarity and OCR reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
Claims 5 and 6 is indefinite for respectively reciting ‘where the contact angle between water and the one or more ribbons that are disposed with the coating on the outermost surface is equal to or more than 100 degrees’ as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claims 14 and 19 are indefinite for respectively reciting ‘one or more layers between the one or more optical fibers and the sheath, as such limitation is incomplete and vague and being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being by .
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over .
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.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “ Khudyakov”; et al., US 6316105 B1, and further in view of “De Cock” et. al.. CA 3150659 A1.
Regarding claims 1, Khudyakov teaches an optical fiber cable 10 comprising one or more optical fibers (shown in at least fig. 1) a coating 18/16 that is disposed on an outermost surface of the one or more optical fibers (core12, clad14), where the coating is made up of a fluoropolymer based hydrophobic resin material; and a sheath that surrounds the one or more optical fibers (see at least col. 3, line 58-col. 4, line 12).
However, Khudyakov does not teach a sheath that surrounds the one or more optical fibers. In the same field of invention, Such extremely conventional limitation is taught by De Cock. De Cock teaches De Cock teaches a protective sheath 35t over the outer coating of the optical fiber (see at least figs. 1d and at least parag. 0049 and 0058). Thus it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art when the invention was made to modify Khudyakov’s optical fiber cable to produce a coated optical fiber cable that include a sheath that protects the coating from environmental degradation.
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of the combined references and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
With regard to claims 3-4, De Cock teaches further teaches, where the one or more optical fibers are in the form of at least one of, one or more individual optical fibers, one or more flat ribbons and one or more ribbons (shown in fig. 7). where the ribbon of the one or more ribbons and the one or more ribbon bundles is an IBR (shown in fig. 7; see analogous motivation in claim 1).
2. (Original) The optical fiber cable of claim 1, where the hydrophobic material is selected from at least one of, perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), flurorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), and terapolymer (EFEP) (see at least abstract).
5. (Original) The optical fiber cable of claim 1, where the contact angle between water and the one or more ribbons that are disposed with the coating on the outermost surface (108) is equal to or more than 100 degrees (for such functional limitation one of ordinary skill in the art could just easily tilt the optical fiber cable with respect water so the contact angle between water and the one or more ribbons that are disposed with the coating on the outermost surface is equal to or more than 100 degrees)
6. (Original) The optical fiber cable of claim 1, where the contact angle between water and the one or more ribbons that are disposed with the coating on the outermost surface (108) is equal to or more than 100 degrees (for such functional limitation one of ordinary skill in the art could just easily tilt the optical fiber cable with respect water so the contact angle between water and the one or more ribbons that are disposed with the coating on the outermost surface is equal to or more than 100 degrees)
With regard to claim 7, Khudyakov teaches where the coating has a predefined thickness that can be a 10 micrometres (µm). however does teach that it is less than 10 µm. De Cock teaches that where the coating has a predefined thickness that can be a 10 micrometres (µm) (see parag. 0030) see above analogous motivation).
8. (Original) The optical fiber cable of claim 1, where the coating is disposed on the outermost surface of the one or optical fibers by way of at least one of, an extrusion process, a vapor spray deposition process, and passing through a liquid resin .
9. (Original) The optical fiber cable of claim 1, where the outermost surface (108) is selected from one of, a primary coating, a secondary coating, a color layer, a ribbon bond matrix, or a combination thereof “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product).
. 10. (Original) The optical fiber cable of claim 1, where the coating is a “colored” coating. Noting that the claimed inventio ingredients are the same would have then the same characteristics/”color”.
14. The optical fiber cable of claim 1 further comprising one or more layers between the one or more optical fibers and the sheath (see fig. 7).
With regard to claim 15, Khudyakov teaches where the coating has a predefined thickness that can be a 10 micrometres (µm). however does teach that it is less than 10 µm. De Cock teaches that where the coating has a predefined thickness that can be a 10 micrometres (µm) (see parag. 0030) see above analogous motivation).
19. The optical fiber cable of claim 1 further comprising one or more layers between the one or more optical fibers and the sheath (see fig. 7).
With regard to claim 20, Khudyakov teaches where the coating has a predefined thickness that can be a 10 micrometres (µm). however does teach that it is less than 10 µm. De Cock teaches that where the coating has a predefined thickness that can be a 10 micrometres (µm) (see parag. 0030) see above analogous motivation).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20250196145 A1
CA 3150659 A1
JP 4803853 B2
WO 2005063366 A2
US 6316105 B1
JP 2001513832 A
JP 2001502653 A
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights