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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 20-23 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and/or cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 20-23 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation "wherein said extruded polymer sheath is of a material having a tensile modulus in excess of 1500 MPa", and the claim also recites "optionally in excess of 2000 MPa, optionally in excess of 2200 MPa and optionally in excess of 2400 MPa" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 12:
- A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation "extruded polymer sheath is of a material having a yield strength in excess of 30 MPa", and the claim also recites “optionally in excess of 40 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, 19, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20140133808 A1) in view of Nothofer (US 7570852 B2).
Regarding claim 1:
Hill discloses a pre-terminated optical fibre cable assembly configured to be installed through a duct (Abstract, “systems and devices for optical fiber connectors may include a first number of connector components configured to be pushed through a duct or conduit”; paragraph 10, “…a pre-terminated optical fiber…” to describe the embodiment of the invention), the pre-terminated optical fibre cable assembly comprising:
a length of cable comprising at least one optical fibre (Figure 1C, optical fiber 18) embedded in a cable protective layer (20) and an outer sheath (22) to form a coated fibre bundle and an extruded polymer sheath (22) covering the coated fibre bundle (Figure 1C);
a ferrule sub-assembly (the ferrule 24, the ferrule holder 32, and the spring 34 constitute a “ferrule sub-assembly”) pre-arranged on at least a leading end of the cable (paragraph 82, “…a first number of components configured to be moved through a duct...”), the ferrule sub- assembly being adapted to become, after installation through said duct, part of a pluggable optical connector for making an optical connection to said at least one optical fibre (Paragraph 34, “A biasing member, such as a spring 34 may be included to provide a biasing force for pressing the ferrule into engagement with an end of another fiber optic device, such as another ferrule,” teaching connection with another optical fiber);
and a restraining part (Figure 4, Figure 5, rear part of the connector body 26, not the connector body as a whole) fixed to a portion of said extruded polymer sheath (22), the restraining part being optionally part of said ferrule sub-assembly (paragraph 30, “the connector body 26 may then be inserted onto the cable 12 until the end of the cable outer sheath 22 abuts the projections 38 within the connector body”), the restraining part being adapted, when said ferrule sub-assembly becomes part of said pluggable connector (paragraph 0009, “…configured to mate with a number of optical fiber connector components after being pushed through the duct.”).
As the restraining part as disclosed is optional, the connector body 26 with its projections 38 satisfies the limitation as a restraining part that is not part of the sub-assembly.
While Hill does not recite the specific force values of 25N and 5N, adapting the restraining part to operate under these force values would be routine for a skilled artisan. The crimped connection between the sheath and the connector body creates a state of strain relief that transfers pull-out force to the connector body rather than the optical fiber. The specific values of 25N and 5N are design parameters that a skilled artisan would have found obvious to optimize to with nothing more than routine experimentation, as strain relief to protect optical fibers from tensile loading is a well-known design objective in fiber optic connectors. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) for routine optimization of results-effective variables.
As such, it would be obvious to configure the fiber such that and when a pull-out force is applied to said pluggable connector by pulling on a trailing portion of the cable, to transfer at least 25 N of said pull-out force to a body of said pluggable connector while any of said pull-out force transferred to said optical fibre remains less than 5 N.
Hill does not explicitly teach the solid resin material and extruded polymer sheath, though both are routine design choices for applying to and developing fibers and coatings in the art.
Nothofer teaches a cable for duct installation (Title) comprising a plurality of optical fibers held in a single buffer tube (Figure 2, buffer tube sheath 4), which reads on the outer sheath of the fiber in the present invention.
Importantly, Nothofer teaches that the sheath may be made of a thermoplastic material such as PBT (“more typically a thermoplastic material such as polyamide (i.e., nylon), polycarbonate (PC), or polyester (e.g., polybutylene terephthalate--PBT), rather than a mixture of polymeric materials”), to provide sheath-based mechanical strength on the outer layer of the cable as well as a material that can be applied to the present invention using standard and routine resin based materials in the art. Furthermore, embedding optical fibers within a solid resin material (tight-buffered connection) rather than a loose tube is a routine and well-known design choice in the fiber optic art to provide additional mechanical protection to the fibers within the sheath.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in Hill under the teachings of Nothofer to contain an outer sheath comprised of a resin material and extruded polymer sheath. The motivation to do so would be to provide a cable construction with optimized mechanical strength and low-friction characteristics (PBT sheath), which are highly desirable properties for predictably ensuring the pre-terminated assembly can be smoothly pushed or blown through small-diameter microducts without damaging the internal fiber, and may be accomplished using ordinary methods and materials known to the art.
Regarding claim 2:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
said ferrule sub-assembly includes an optical ferrule (Figures 3-5, ferrule 24) and a ferrule holder (32), said optical ferrule being seated in a forward part of said ferrule holder, said optical fibre passing through a bore of said ferrule holder and extending into a bore of said optical ferrule (Paragraph 45, “The ferrule 24 may be inserted into a ferrule holder 32, and together with the spring 34 the ferrule assembly may be positioned onto the end of the optical fiber 18”).
Regarding claim 3:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 2, wherein:
said ferrule sub-assembly further includes a spring (Figures 3-5, spring 34) for biasing the ferrule sub-assembly into contact with a mating connector (paragraph 45 discloses the setup as shown above, a spring by design maintains a biasing force and based on its location as shown in Figures 3-5, would bias the ferrule sub assembly into contact with a mating connector), said spring being seated in a rear part of said ferrule holder (Figure 4 and 5 show best that the spring 34 is seated in a rear part of the ferrule sub assembly).
Regarding claim 5:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 2.
Hill does not initially state that the restraining part is bonded within a bore of the ferrule holder. Hill initially teaches that the ferrule holder functions as an integral restraining part via mechanical crimping (paragraph 34, “post 32a of the holder 32 may be crimped about the layer 20 to better retain the fiber in the ferrule 24.”).
However, Hill later suggests that adhesive bonding is a known, permanent alternative to mechanical crimping for fiber optic connector components (paragraph 37 discloses this explicitly, that “an adhesive may be used to retain cable 12 within the connector body 26”).
As such, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to replace the mechanical crimp via the posts 32a of the holder with an adhesive bond within the bore of the ferrule holder 32. This would provide a ‘more permanent connection’ as explicitly suggested, for a component that serves as the restraining part of the ferrule sub assembly. This modification ensures robust axial retention and strain relief during duct installation, utilizing only standard manufacturing processes known in the art.
Regarding claim 6:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
said restraining part (rear part of connector body 26) is fixed to said portion of the sheath (22) at a position spaced behind said ferrule sub-assembly (Figures 4 & 5 show this best), and is adapted to engage a portion of a connector body (the restraining part of connector body is engaged with the whole of the connector body 26) for the transfer of said 25 N of the pull-out force (as the components are connected, the force would transfer).
Regarding claim 7:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 6, wherein:
said restraining part comprises a cylindrical body surrounding said portion of the sheath (Figures 2A and 2B are angled perspectives which show that the body is cylindrical).
Regarding claim 8:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 7, wherein:
said restraining part further comprises a projection, optionally an annular projection, for engaging said portion of the connector body (Figures 3-5 illustrate an engagement depression 54 which has a T-shaped cross section but is annular around the connector body 26, and which provides an engagement surface 54a to engage with internal configurations of the ferrule housing subassembly 14; paragraphs 44, 50-52 describe it in further detail).
Regarding claim 9:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein said restraining part is fixed to said portion of the sheath by bonding.
Hill later suggests that adhesive bonding is a known, permanent alternative to mechanical crimping for fiber optic connector components (paragraph 37 discloses this explicitly, that “an adhesive may be used to retain cable 12 within the connector body 26.” As the connector body contains the restraining part and the cable 12 is surrounded by the sheath).
As such, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to fix the restraining part of the connector body 26 to a portion of the sheath via bonding. This would provide a ‘more permanent connection’ as explicitly suggested, for a component that serves as the restraining part of the sheath. This modification ensures robust axial retention and strain relief during duct installation, utilizing only standard manufacturing processes known in the art.
Regarding claim 11:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Hill does not specifically teach tensile moduli.
Nothofer teaches a microcable specifically designed for duct installation where the outer sheath is made of a thermoplastic material (see rejection of claim 1), wherein said extruded polymer sheath is of a material having a tensile modulus in excess of 1500 MPa, optionally in excess of 2000 MPa, optionally in excess of 2200 MPa and optionally in excess of 2400 MPa (Col. 4, ln. 16-29, teaches that the Young’s modulus of the outer sheath is between 1,300 N/mm2 and 3,000 N/mm2, which encompasses this range).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Nothofer to have a tensile modulus with at least 1500, 2000, 2200, or 2400 MPa. 1 N/mm2 corresponds to 1 MPa, and as such, a skilled artisan would find configuring an outer sheath to be the claimed values or greater. This may be accomplished using manufacturing materials and methods known in the art, and would predictably provide an outer sheath with the requisite stiffness and tensile modulus necessary to protect the fibers and allow the cable to be blown into the microducts.
Regarding claim 12:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Hill is silent on yield strength.
Nothofer teaches a PBT or Polyamide thermoplastic sheath (the sheath/buffer tube 4 may be composed of PBT).
While a yield strength is not explicitly cited, it is well known in the art that PBT has a yield strength wherein said extruded polymer sheath is of a material having a yield strength in excess of 30 MPa, optionally in excess of 40 MPa. This is an inherent property of the material being formulated with a Young’s modulus between 1300 and 3000 MPa, and materials like PBT and Polyamide 12 necessarily have a yield strength in excess of 30 MPa and 40 MPa when formed with the claimed Young’s modulus.
Regarding claim 19:
A method of assembling a pre-terminated optical fibre cable assembly configured to be installed through a duct, the method comprises the steps of:
providing a length of cable comprising at least one optical fibre (Figure 1C, optical fiber 18) embedded in a cable protective layer (20) and an outer sheath (22) to form a coated fibre bundle and an extruded polymer sheath (22) covering the coated fibre bundle (Figure 1C);
prior to installation through said duct fixing a ferrule sub-assembly (the ferrule 24, the ferrule holder 32, and the spring 34 constitute a “ferrule sub-assembly”) on a leading end of the cable (paragraph 82, “…a first number of components configured to be moved through a duct...”), the ferrule adapted to become, after installation through said duct, part of a pluggable optical connector for making an optical connection to said at least one optical fibre (Paragraph 34, “A biasing member, such as a spring 34 may be included to provide a biasing force for pressing the ferrule into engagement with an end of another fiber optic device, such as another ferrule,” teaching connection with another optical fiber);
and prior to installation through said duct, fixing a restraining part (Figure 4, Figure 5, rear part of the connector body 26, not the connector body as a whole) to a portion of said extruded polymer sheath (22), the restraining part being optionally part of said ferrule sub-assembly (paragraph 30, “the connector body 26 may then be inserted onto the cable 12 until the end of the cable outer sheath 22 abuts the projections 38 within the connector body”), the restraining part being adapted, when said ferrule sub-assembly becomes part of said pluggable connector (paragraph 0009, “…configured to mate with a number of optical fiber connector components after being pushed through the duct.”).
As the restraining part as disclosed is optional, the connector body 26 with its projections 38 satisfies the limitation as a restraining part that is not part of the sub-assembly.
While Hill does not recite the specific force values of 25N and 5N, adapting the restraining part to operate under these force values would be routine for a skilled artisan. The crimped connection between the sheath and the connector body creates a state of strain relief that transfers pull-out force to the connector body rather than the optical fiber. The specific values of 25N and 5N are design parameters that a skilled artisan would have found obvious to optimize to with nothing more than routine experimentation, as strain relief to protect optical fibers from tensile loading is a well-known design objective in fiber optic connectors. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) for routine optimization of results-effective variables.
As such, it would be obvious to configure the fiber such that and when a pull-out force is applied to said pluggable connector by pulling on a trailing portion of the cable, to transfer at least 25 N of said pull-out force to a body of said pluggable connector while any of said pull-out force transferred to said optical fibre remains less than 5 N.
Hill does not explicitly teach both the solid resin material and extruded polymer sheath, though both are routine design choices for applying to and developing fibers and coatings in the art.
Nothofer teaches a cable for duct installation (Title) comprising a plurality of optical fibers held in a single buffer tube (Figure 2, buffer tube sheath 4), which reads on the outer sheath of the fiber in the present invention.
Importantly, Nothofer teaches that the sheath may be made of a thermoplastic material such as PBT (“more typically a thermoplastic material such as polyamide (i.e., nylon), polycarbonate (PC), or polyester (e.g., polybutylene terephthalate--PBT), rather than a mixture of polymeric materials”), to provide sheath-based mechanical strength on the outer layer of the cable as well as a material that can be applied to the present invention using standard and routine resin based materials in the art. Furthermore, embedding optical fibers within a solid resin material (tight-buffered connection) rather than a loose tube is a routine and well-known design choice in the fiber optic art to provide additional mechanical protection to the fibers within the sheath.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in Hill under the teachings of Nothofer to contain an outer sheath comprised of a resin material and extruded polymer sheath. The motivation to do so would be to provide a cable construction with optimized mechanical strength and low-friction characteristics (PBT sheath), which are highly desirable properties for predictably ensuring the pre-terminated assembly can be smoothly pushed or blown through small-diameter microducts without damaging the internal fiber, and may be accomplished using ordinary methods and materials known to the art.
Regarding claim 24:
Hill in view of Nothofer teaches method of installing a pre-terminated optical fibre cable assembly according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
inserting the leading end of said cable including said ferrule sub-assembly into a duct (Hill discloses that cables may pass through a duct/conduit, and a protective cap 28 with a rounded tip 49 for easier passage through said ducts – paragraph 41);
and transporting a length of the cable through the duct until a leading portion of the cable protrudes from the duct (paragraph 41 discloses that the cable is transported through the duct using a component such as a drill to facilitate the motion);
and adding a connector body (connector body 26, and Hill teaches that the housing is added after the insertion into the duct: “and a second number of components including an extender cap configured to be assembled to a housing after being moved through the duct, and a protective sleeve configured to protect the pushable optical fiber connector as it is pushed through the duct”) to the ferrule sub-assembly to complete said pluggable optical connector, at least a part of said connector body engaging with the restraining part for the transfer of said pull-out force (the connector body 26 is inserted onto the cable until the outer sheath 22 abuts the projections 38 and the connector body is crimped onto the cable, thereby engaging with the restraining part – the rear part of the connector body with projections 38 engaging the sheath and transferring the pull out force, as discussed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 25:
Hill in view of Nothofer teaches a kit of parts for installing an optical fibre cable, the kit of parts comprising a pre-terminated optical fibre cable assembly according claim 1 (the invention necessarily contains a kit of parts, as there are many parts which are then assembled),
and a connector body for adding to the ferrule sub-assembly to complete said pluggable optical connector (“and a second number of components including an extender cap configured to be assembled to a housing after being moved through the duct, and a protective sleeve configured to protect the pushable optical fiber connector as it is pushed through the duct”),
at least a part of said connector body being adapted to engage with the restraining part of the pre-terminated optical fibre cable assembly for the transfer of said pull-out force (connector sheath 26 is crimped onto the cable with projections 38, engaging the outer sheath 22, as further described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 26:
Hill discloses a kit of parts for use in making a pre-terminated optical fibre cable assembly, the kit of parts comprising:
a length of cable (12) comprising at least one optical fibre (18) embedded in a solid resin material to form a coated fibre bundle (cable protective layer 20) and an extruded polymer sheath (sheath 22) covering the coated fibre bundle (Figure 1C);
at least one ferrule sub-assembly (ferrule 24, ferrule holder 32, spring 34 together make a ferrule sub-assembly) adapted to be arranged on a leading end of the length of cable prior to installation of the cable through a duct (Paragraph 82, “a first number of components configured to be moved through a duct,” in multiple embodiments), the ferrule sub-assembly being adapted to become, after installation through said duct, part of a pluggable optical connector for making an optical connection to said at least one optical fibre (Paragraph 34, “A biasing member, such as a spring 34 may be included to provide a biasing force for pressing the ferrule into engagement with an end of another fiber optic device, such as another ferrule,” teaching connection with another optical fiber);
and a restraining part which is optionally part of said ferrule sub-assembly (rear part of connector body 26), the restraining part being adapted to be fixed to a portion of said extruded polymer sheath prior to installation of the cable through the duct (the projections 38 crimp the restraining part to the cable sheath 22),
While Hill does not recite the specific force values of 25N and 5N, adapting the restraining part to operate under these force values would be routine for a skilled artisan. The crimped connection between the sheath and the connector body creates a state of strain relief that transfers pull-out force to the connector body rather than the optical fiber. The specific values of 25N and 5N are design parameters that a skilled artisan would have found obvious to optimize to with nothing more than routine experimentation, as strain relief to protect optical fibers from tensile loading is a well-known design objective in fiber optic connectors. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) for routine optimization of results-effective variables.
As such, it would be obvious to configure the fiber such that and when a pull-out force is applied to said pluggable connector by pulling on a trailing portion of the cable, to transfer at least 25 N of said pull-out force to a body of said pluggable connector while any of said pull-out force transferred to said optical fibre remains less than 5 N.
Hill does not explicitly teach the solid resin material and extruded polymer sheath, though both are routine design choices for applying to and developing fibers and coatings in the art.
Nothofer teaches a cable for duct installation (Title) comprising a plurality of optical fibers held in a single buffer tube (Figure 2, buffer tube sheath 4), which reads on the outer sheath of the fiber in the present invention.
Importantly, Nothofer teaches that the sheath may be made of a thermoplastic material such as PBT (“more typically a thermoplastic material such as polyamide (i.e., nylon), polycarbonate (PC), or polyester (e.g., polybutylene terephthalate--PBT), rather than a mixture of polymeric materials”), to provide sheath-based mechanical strength on the outer layer of the cable as well as a material that can be applied to the present invention using standard and routine resin based materials in the art. Furthermore, embedding optical fibers within a solid resin material (tight-buffered connection) rather than a loose tube is a routine and well-known design choice in the fiber optic art to provide additional mechanical protection to the fibers within the sheath.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in Hill under the teachings of Nothofer to contain an outer sheath comprised of a resin material and extruded polymer sheath with the specific pull-out force values recited. The motivation to do so would be to provide a cable construction with optimized mechanical strength and low-friction characteristics (PBT sheath), which are highly desirable properties for predictably ensuring the pre-terminated assembly can be smoothly pushed or blown through small-diameter microducts without damaging the internal fiber, and may be accomplished using ordinary methods and materials known to the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20140133808 A1) in view of Nothofer (US 7570852 B2), and further in view of Commscope (US 20190250338 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Hill does not explicitly disclose that the restraining part is part of the ferrule sub-assembly, as previously noted, Hill utilizes a connector body (26) with internal projections (38) as the restraining part, which is assembled after the assembly is pushed through the duct.
Commscope teaches a fiber optic connector with a first ferrule sub-assembly (80) that is factory installed and routed through ducts (Summary, Col 1 ln 61-67). The first sub assembly includes a ferrule (Figure 3, ferrule 24), ferrule hub (26), spring (28), and strain relief sleeve (32) that acts as the restraining part. The strain relief sleeve is integral to the first sub-assembly (i.e. a part of the ferrule sub-assembly), and provides axial retention during duct routing before the outer connector housing (block 30) is laterally mounted over.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Commscope to incorporate an integral strain relief/restraining element as part of Hill’s ferrule assembly. This may be accomplished using ordinary placement of fibers within known components (the sleeve) and techniques, and would predictably provide continuous strain relief and axial retention to protect the delicate optical fibers from tensile loading during the duct installation process itself, prior to the attachment of external components.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20140133808 A1) in view of Nothofer (US 7570852 B2), and further in view of Doss (US 20120315001 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 9.
Hill does not teach the use of a thermoset resin specifically, but it is a class of material whose properties are well established and utilized commonly in the art.
Doss teaches the use of bonding adhesives, bonding is by a thermoset resin, for example epoxy resin (paragraphs 0004-0005 detail such materials and their uses in fiber optic connectors explicitly).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the invention described in the rejection of claim 9 above under the teachings of Doss and routine practices in the art to use a thermoset resin, for example an epoxy resin, in the bonding adhesive. This may be accomplished using methods and materials known to the art, and would predictably allow for a permanent connection between optical components with a noninvasive and industry standard practice for curing bonding resins (heat).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20140133808 A1) in view of Nothofer (US 7570852 B2), and further in view of Chen (US 9701859 B2).
Regarding claim 13:
Hill in view of Nothofer discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Hill does not teach the sheath comprising a mixture of PBT and at least one friction reducing additive, even if Nothofer does teach the use of PBT (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Chen explicitly teaches materials for the development of optical fibers and optical fiber sheaths (“Other articles of manufacture that can be prepared from the polymer compositions of this invention include fibers, ribbons, sheets, tapes, tubes, pipes, weather-stripping, seals, gaskets, hoses, foams, footwear bellows, bottles, and films. These articles can be manufactured using known equipment and techniques.”), utilizing a ‘slip agent’ (Abstract) that can be compounded with the ethylene-based polymeric compositions as an additive or as a pre-mix (Col 6, ln 54-67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Chen, to configure said extruded polymer sheath such that it comprises a mixture of polybutylene terephthalate polymer (PBT) and at least one friction reducing additive. A skilled artisan would be well aware of the use of slip agents mixed with the base sheath material during extrusion, and their use would predictably reduce the friction present during the claimed duct installation, ensuring minimal damage to the fiber sheath and internal fiber components and smooth installation.
Regarding claim 14:
Hill in view of Nothofer, and further in view of Chen discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 13.
Hill does not disclose the use of PDMS in a carrier material.
Chen explicitly teaches the use of a friction reducing additive (“slip agent”) comprising PDMS.
“In various embodiments, the silicone can be selected from the group consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (“PDMS”), poly(ethyl-methylsiloxane), and mixtures thereof”, (Col 4., Ln. 64-67), in reference to the carrier polymer used (combination may be a masterbatch of “UHMW OH-PDMS in HDPE”, Col 5., Ln 1-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 13 above under the teachings of Chen, to select said friction reducing additive to comprise a polydimethylsiloxane material, PDMS in a carrier material. This may be accomplished using materials known in the art and may be applied using known design techniques, and would predictably ensure the PDMS slip agent is incorporated during standard polymer compounding stages and dispersed into the base sheath material, thereby reliably reducing friction for duct installation and reducing the chance of damage to the sheath and/or fiber.
Regarding claim 15:
Hill in view of Nothofer, and further in view of Chen discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 14.
Hill does not teach a molecular weight of the PDMS.
Chen teaches the use of ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) PDMS (Col. 4 & 5, Ln 55-67 & Ln 1-9; the “silicone” referred to is the PDMS, and is explicitly disclosed as being an “ultra -high molecular weight hydroxyl-terminated polydimethylsiloxane,” with cited material properties that read on the claim limitation).
Chen does not explicitly disclose that the carrier material is a polyacrylate materials such as EMA. However, UMHW PDMS silicone masterbatches are commercially available in a variety of carrier resins selected for compatibility with the base polymer. Dow Corning HMB-1103 is a known masterbatch that has been commercially available since prior to the priority date of the claimed invention, and is compatible with PBT, POM, PA, PET, PP, and PE.
The selection of an EMA carrier for compatibility with a PBT base resin would have been an obvious design choice for a skilled artisan, as EMA is a well-known carrier resin for silicone masterbatches (as disclosed in Chen) used in engineering thermoplastics. See MPEP 2144.07, selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 14 above under the teachings of Chen to ensure that the PDMS is an ultra-high molecular weight PDMS and said carrier material is a polyacrylate material, for example a copolymer of ethylene and methyl acrylate, EMA. This would be accomplished using materials well known to a skilled artisan, and would provide the benefit of merely requiring commercially available materials for invention design and production, greatly reducing manufacturing burden while maintaining use of robust and reliable materials.
Regarding claim 16:
Hill in view of Nothofer, and further in view of Chen discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 14.
Hill does not teach a low density molecular weight PDMS.
Chen, as discussed in claim 15, teaches the use of a UHMW PDMS provided in a polyethylene carrier as a masterbatch. Chen also discloses the use of a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Col. 2 & 3, Ln 64-67 & Ln 1-9), in applications where the reduced temperature for melting and dispersion provides the benefit of reducing shear stress during compounding and leading to overall less weight.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 14 above to include a UHMW PDMS in a LDPE carrier. This could be accomplished using materials known in the art (Dow Corning MB50-002 is a commercially available masterbatch material containing UHMW polymer dispersed in LDPE, designed for use as an additive in resin systems), and would predictably result in a configuration where a low melting point and low shear stress material is capable of being added to the carrier material using readily available masterbatches, reducing burden of manufacture and time to obtain said materials to produce the cable sheath.
Regarding claim 17:
Hill in view of Nothofer, and further in view of Chen discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 16.
Hill does not teach the claimed additive or carrier material.
Chen teaches the PDMS masterbatch MB50-314 (Table 1, footnote), wherein an additive (“slip agent”) comprises at least 40% by weight ultra-high molecular weight PDMS and said carrier material HDPE (This is stated explicitly in the footnote, a value of 50%).
As discussed in claim 16, Dow Corning MB50-002 is a commercially available masterbatch containing 50% UHMW PDMS in an LDPE carrier. MB50-002 likewise satisfies the requirement of at least 40% by weight UHMW PDMS, with LDPE as the carrier material instead of HDPE.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 16 above under the teachings of Chen to include an additive comprising at least 40% by weight ultra-high molecular weight PDMS in LPDE carrier material. Both are disclosed by Chen and an obvious configuration to a skilled artisan, requiring only routine design oversight and commercially available materials to incorporate into the manufacturing process for the optical fiber components. This would predictably result in a material that requires less masterbatch materials to achieve the target PDMS level in the final compound, and the LDPE would permit the lower temperature processing and dispersion of the additive material resulting in effective delivery of the slip agent and the necessary smoothness for ductile installation in the device.
Regarding claim 18:
Hill in view of Nothofer, and further in view of Chen discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 13.
Hill is silent on the slip agent/additive.
Chen teaches that the amount of friction reducing additive is between 1% and 5%, optionally between 2% and 4% by weight of the material of the extruded sheath.
The slip agent is disclosed to be combined in an amount ranging from 0.35 to 3.0 % by weight, the PDMS silicone component individually ranges from 0.25 to 2.9 % by weight (Col 5., ln 35-65).
The claimed range of 1-5% (and optionally 2 to 4%) by weight overlaps with Chen’s disclosed PDMS range. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). A skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the amount of PDMS friction reducing additive within the claimed range to achieve sufficient friction reduction for duct installation while minimizing the impact on the mechanical properties of the PBT sheath, based on the teachings of Chen.
Additional References
The following is used as an evidentiary reference instead of prior art, to show that LDPE and EMA carriers for UHMW PDMS masterbatches are well known in the art and were commercially available at the time of filing.
Dupont Sell Sheet, MULTIBASE Thermoplastic Additives, 2021 (https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/amer/us/en/mobility/public/documents/en/Sellsheet_Masterbatch-Additives.pdf)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 A 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874