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 (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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06 August, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, some of the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. Those that are not withdrawn are included below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, except for the following point, which is unpersuasive: Applicant argues that their claim has only a single central optical fiber bundle with a greater number of optical fibers than the surrounding bundles, while Seddon teaches a plurality of bundles 14 with the same number of fibers.
Examiner disagrees. The additional bundles 14 in the Seddon cable are irrelevant because the claim uses the open-ended transition “comprising”, which does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 12-13, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3: comma after “one of” should be removed.
Regarding claim 5: “wherein the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprising a central optical fiber bundle”: “comprising” should be “comprises”.
Regarding claim 7: “wherein the central optical fiber bundle has a plurality of optical fibers and each bundle of the set of surrounding optical fiber bundles has a plurality of optical fibers” – claim 1 already requires that each optical fiber bundle of the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a plurality of optical fibers.
Regarding claims 9 and 17: “ARP, FRPs” should be deleted since they are redundant.
Regarding claims 12 and 16: “substantial” should be “substantially”.
Regarding claim 13: “a numerical count of number of optical fibers in a central bundle disposed along a central longitudinal axis of the cable is more than number of optical fibers each of the remaining in non-central bundles” has several grammatical issues. “a numerical count of number” contains redundancy. “more than number” should be “more than a number”, “each of the remaining in non-central bundles” is also grammatically incorrect and contains antecedent basis issues, as described below. Accordingly, an interpretation is provided below following the 112(b) rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claims 6 and 14: Claims 6 and 14 recite “wherein the one or more inner layers are surrounded by one or more outer protective layers, and are disposed between the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath”. It is unclear how the one or more inner layers can be disposed between the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath, given that the one or more inner layers are defined by the set of surrounding optical fiber bundles that surround the central optical fiber bundle. In other words, it is understood that the one or more inner layers are only disposed between the central optical fiber bundle and the sheath, not the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath. Does Applicant mean “wherein the one or more inner layers are surrounded by one or more outer protective layers that are disposed between the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath”? For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted as meaning “wherein the one or more inner layers are surrounded by one or more outer protective layers that are disposed between the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath”.
Regarding claim 13: “the remaining” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “than number of optical fibers each of the remaining in non-central bundles” is interpreted as referring to the number of optical fibers in the others of the plurality of optical fiber bundles besides the central one.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carratt et al. (US Patent No. 5,703,984; hereinafter Carratt).
Regarding claim 1: Carratt disclosesAn optical fiber cable (Fig. 1, cable 1) comprising: a plurality of optical fiber bundles (Fig. 1, modules 2A, 2B), wherein each optical fiber bundle of the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 1, optical fibers 3) such that a number of the plurality of optical fibers in at least two optical fiber bundles of the plurality of optical fiber bundles is different (Fig. 1 shows 4 bundles with 5 optical fibers each, 1 bundle with 7 optical fibers, and 2 bundles with 4 optical fibers), wherein the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a central optical fiber bundle (Fig. 1, module 2A) positioned along a central axis of the cable and a set of surrounding optical fiber bundles (Fig. 1, modules 2B); and a sheath (Fig. 1, covering 5) that surrounds the plurality of optical fiber bundles.
Regarding claim 5: Carratt discloses The optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprise a central optical fiber bundle (Fig. 1, module 2A) and a set of surrounding optical fiber bundles (Fig. 1, modules 2B) such that the set of surrounding optical fiber bundles are arranged around the central optical fiber bundle to define one or more inner layers (Fig. 1 shows this).
Regarding claim 6: Carratt discloses The optical fiber cable of claim 5 (as applied above), wherein the one or more inner layers are surrounded by one or more outer protective layers that are disposed between the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath (see col. 4, lines 56-58, “sealant”).
Regarding claim 12: Carratt disclosesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the one or more optical fiber bundles have one of a substantial circular shape, an arc shape, and an oval shape (Fig. 1 shows that the one or more optical fiber bundles have a substantially circular shape).
Regarding claim 13: Carratt disclosesAn optical fiber cable (Fig. 1, cable 1) comprising (examiner notes that this is an open-ended transitional phrase; accordingly, the prior art cable can contain components in addition to those corresponding to the claimed elements): a plurality of optical fiber bundles (Fig. 1, module 2A and the two modules 2B that have 4 optical fibers in each), wherein each optical fiber bundle of the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 1, fibers 3) such that a numerical count of number of optical fibers in a central bundle disposed along a central longitudinal axis of the cable (Fig. 1, module 2A) is more than number of optical fibers each of the remaining in non-central bundles (Fig. 1, module 2A has 5 optical fibers, whereas the two modules 2B remaining in the plurality of optical fiber bundles identified above each have 4 optical fibers); and a sheath (Fig. 1, covering 5) that surrounds the plurality of optical fiber bundles.
Regarding claim 16: Carratt disclosesThe optical fiber cable of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the one or more optical fiber bundles have one of a substantially circular shape, an arc shape, and an oval shape (see Fig. 1, the plurality of optical fiber bundles have a substantially circular shape).
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seddon et al. (US 2003/0118300; hereinafter Seddon) in view of Keller et al. (US 2014/0226940; hereinafter Keller).
Regarding claim 1: Seddon disclosesAn optical fiber cable (Figs. 1 and 5, fiber optic cables 10 and 10’) comprising: a plurality of optical fiber bundles (Figs. 1 and 5, optical fiber bundles 14, 19, 14’ and 19’), wherein each optical fiber bundle of the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a plurality of optical fibers such that a number of the plurality of optical fibers in at least two optical fiber bundles of the plurality of optical fiber bundles is different (see paragraph 0085),
Seddon further disclosesa sheath (Fig. 1, cable jacket 20 and corresponding feature in Fig. 5) that surrounds the plurality of optical fiber bundles.
Seddon fails to disclose that the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a central optical fiber bundle positioned along a central axis of the cable and a set of surrounding optical fiber bundles, since Seddon discloses an optical fiber cable having a strength member positioned along the central axis of the cable. However, Keller, also related to optical fiber cables having a plurality of optical fiber bundles (see Fig. 14), teaches that providing two or more off-center and smaller non-polymer jacketed GRPs in a core also containing optical fiber bundles can provide cold temperature performance, including shrinkage resistance, as well as improved flexibility, compared with a central strength member (see paragraphs 0007-0016, in particular “This configuration renders a cable core and a central strength unit that acts as the cable's anti-contraction and strength unit around which additional buffer tubes may be stranded”). In order to provide these benefits, 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 Seddon optical fiber cable by replacing the central strength member with two or more off-center strength members and one of the optical fiber bundles of the inner layer, since it was taught by Keller (see Keller Fig. 9), such that the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a central optical fiber bundle positioned along a central axis of the cable and a set of surrounding optical fiber bundles.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Seddon teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of optical fibers are in the form of at least one of loose fibers, optical fiber ribbons, and intermittently bonded fibers (IBRs) (see paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Seddon teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprise a central optical fiber bundle (as described above, the optical fiber bundle based on the “cable core” of Keller Fig. 9) and a set of surrounding optical fiber bundles (Figs. 1 and 5, bundles 19 and 19’) such that the set of surrounding optical fiber bundles are arranged around the central optical fiber bundle to define one or more inner layers (the surrounding optical fiber bundles are arranged around the central optical fiber bundle to define one or more inner layers, as shown in Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Seddon teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 5 (as applied above), wherein the one or more inner layers are surrounded by one or more outer protective layers (Fig. 1, water swellable tapes 16) that are disposed between the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath (as best understood, the inner and outer layers of bundles, the outer tape 16, and the sheath 20 of Fig. 1 matches the configuration of, for example, 306a, 306b, 210, and 108 in instant Fig. 3; therefore, to the best of Examiner’s understanding discloses this claimed feature).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Seddon teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 5 (as applied above), wherein the central optical fiber bundle has a plurality of optical fibers (Figs. 1 and 5 show this) and each bundle of the set of surrounding optical fiber bundles has a plurality of optical fibers (Figs. 1 and 5 show this) such that a numerical count of the plurality of optical fibers disposed in the central optical fiber bundle is greater than a numerical count of the plurality of optical fibers disposed in each bundle of the set of surrounding optical fiber bundles (see paragraph 0085, wherein Seddon discloses that the outer layer of buffer tubes can have a fewer number of optical fibers in a bundle or stack, with respect to the bundle or stack of the inner layer of buffer tubes).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Seddon teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 6 (as applied above), wherein the one or more outer protective layers are selected from a water blocking tape, aramid yarns, glass roving yarns, mica tape, and water swellable yarns (see paragraph 0064, water swellable tapes are considered to be water blocking tapes and they are considered to be water swellable yarns).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Seddon teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the one or more optical fiber bundles have one of a substantially circular shape, an arc shape, and an oval shape (see Fig. 1, the optical fiber bundles have a substantially circular shape).
Regarding claim 13: Seddon disclosesAn optical fiber cable (Figs. 1 and 5, fiber optic cables 10 and 10’) comprising: a plurality of optical fiber bundles (Fig. 1, one of optical fiber bundles 14, and each of optical fiber bundles 19; Fig. 5, one of optical fiber bundles 14’, and each of optical fiber bundles 19’), wherein each optical fiber bundle of the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a plurality of optical fibers such that a numerical count of number of optical fibers in a central bundle of the cable (Fig. 1, one of optical fiber bundles 14; Fig. 5, one of optical fiber bundles 14’) is more than number of optical fibers each of the remaining in non-central bundles (Fig. 1, optical fiber bundles 19; Fig. 5, optical fiber bundles 19’; see paragraph 0085); and a sheath (Fig. 1, sheath 20; corresponding feature in Fig. 5) that surrounds the plurality of optical fiber bundles.
Seddon fails to teach that the central optical fiber bundle is disposed along a central longitudinal axis of the cable. since Seddon discloses an optical fiber cable having a strength member positioned along the central axis of the cable. However, Keller, also related to optical fiber cables having a plurality of optical fiber bundles (see Fig. 14), teaches that providing two or more off-center and smaller non-polymer jacketed GRPs in a core also containing optical fiber bundles can provide cold temperature performance, including shrinkage resistance, as well as improved flexibility, compared with a central strength member (see paragraphs 0007-0016, in particular “This configuration renders a cable core and a central strength unit that acts as the cable's anti-contraction and strength unit around which additional buffer tubes may be stranded”). In order to provide these benefits, 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 Seddon optical fiber cable by replacing the central strength member with two or more off-center strength members and one of the optical fiber bundles of the inner layer, since it was taught by Keller (see Keller Fig. 9), such that the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a central optical fiber bundle positioned along a central axis of the cable and a set of surrounding optical fiber bundles.
Regarding claim 14: Seddon disclosesThe optical fiber cable of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of optical fiber bundles comprises a central optical fiber bundle (as applied above, the optical fiber bundle 14, included in the cable core according to the teachings of Keller Fig. 9) and a set of surrounding optical fiber bundles (Fig. 1, optical fiber bundles 19) wherein the set of surrounding optical fiber bundles are arranged around the central optical fiber bundle to define one or more inner layers (Fig. 1 shows this), and wherein the one or more layers are surrounded by one or more outer protective layers (Fig. 1, water swellable tapes 16), and are disposed between the plurality of optical fiber bundles and the sheath (as best understood, the inner and outer layers of bundles, the outer tape 16, and the sheath 20 of Fig. 1 matches the configuration of, for example, 306a, 306b, 210, and 108 in instant Fig. 3; therefore, to the best of Examiner’s understanding discloses this claimed feature).
Regarding claim 16: Seddon disclosesThe optical fiber cable of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein the one or more optical fiber bundles have one of, a substantial circular shape, an arc shape, and an oval shape (see Fig. 1, the optical fiber bundles have a substantially circular shape).
Claims 10-11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carratt et al. (US Patent No. 5,703,984; hereinafter Carratt).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, respectively: Carratt discloses the optical fiber cable of claims 1 and 13, respectively, as applied above. Carratt fails to teach that a filling coefficient of the optical fiber cable is greater than 0.4. The filling coefficient is a result effective variable since it relates to how many optical fibers are able to be packed into an optical fiber cable for maximizing signal transmission capability for a cable of particular dimensions. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the cable with a filling coefficient greater than 0.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, respectively: Carratt discloses the optical fiber cable of claims 1 and 13, respectively, as applied above. Carratt fails to teach that the numerical count of the plurality of optical fibers in each optical fiber bundle is in a range of 24 to 1152. The numerical count of the plurality of optical fibers is a result effective variable, since it determines the signal transmission capability of the cable. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a numerical count of the plurality of optical fibers in each optical fiber bundle in a range of 24 to 1152, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claims 2-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seddon et al. (US 2003/0118300; hereinafter Seddon) in view of Keller et al. (US 2014/0226940; hereinafter Keller) and further in view of Field et al. (US Patent No. 6,014,487; hereinafter Field).
Regarding claims 2 and 19: Seddon discloses the optical fiber cable of claims 1 and 13, respectively, as applied above. Seddon further teaches that the fiber optic cable can further include core binders and incorporates Fields by reference. Field, also related to optical fiber cables (see title and abstract), teaches that each tube section containing a fiber optic bundle is bound together with a binder (see col. 2, lines 53-54). Since Seddon suggests including binders and incorporates Field by reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bind the plurality of optical fibers by one or more binders, as taught by Field. Such a configuration would better ensure the organization of the optical fiber cable.
Regarding claim 3 and 20: Modified Seddon teachesThe optical fiber cable of claims 2 and 19, respectively (as applied above), wherein the one or more binders are selected from one of a yarn-based binder and a tape-based binder (see Field Fig. 1, binder yarn 26).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carratt et al. (US Patent No. 5,703,984; hereinafter Carratt) in view of Dean et al. (US Patent No. 4,230,395; hereinafter Dean).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, respectively: Carratt discloses the optical fiber cable of claims 1 and 13, respectively, as applied above, wherein the optical fiber cable further comprises one or more strength members embedded in the sheath (see col. 3, lines 34-42). While Carratt further suggests metal or aramid materials for the strength members (see same passage), Carratt fails to teach that the one or more strength members are selected from Aramid Reinforcement Plastic (ARP), Fibre Reinforced Plastics (FRPs), and steel rods. Dean, also related to reinforcing optical fiber cables with reinforcing rods embedded in sheaths (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 65-col. 4, line 27), wherein the reinforcing rods are taught to be made of steel (see Dean col. 3, lines 65-col. 4, line 27). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since it was a known suitable material and since Carratt suggested using metal rods for the strength members embedded in the sheath, 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 Carratt device by using steel rods for the strength members embedded in the sheath, in order to benefit from its wide availability and strength.
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 Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 at (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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights