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 .
Specification
2. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 21-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strong et al. (US-8489219-B1).
With respect to claim 21, Strong et al. (figure 1) disclose a capstan system for controlling shrinkage of a buffer tube that surrounds one or more optical fibers as the buffer tube cools following extrusion of the buffer tube, the system comprising: at least two capstans (60, 70) engaging the buffer tube (40) in a first plane, wherein each capstan incudes at least one driven wheel (figure 1) and wherein the clamping pressure (tension compression 60,70) exerted by each capstan on the buffer tube (40) is monitored by at least one pressure sensor (80) (figure 1 and column 4, lines 30-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22, Strong et al. (figure 1) disclose the capstan system, wherein all of the wheels (wheels 60, 70) are driven in order to minimize resistance (figure 1).
With respect to claim 23, Strong et al. (figure 1) disclose the capstan system, wherein the wheels are all driven at the same speed (column 3, line 27).
With respect to claim 24, Strong et al. (figure 1) disclose the capstan system, wherein the at least one pressure sensor (80) includes a strain gauge (figure 1).
With respect to claim 25, Strong et al. (figure 1) disclose the capstan system, further comprising a clamping pressure adjustment system (column 4, lines 30-40).
With respect to claim 27, Strong et al. (figure 1) disclose the capstan system, comprising two or more capstans in the first plane and two or more capstans in a second plane perpendicular to the first plane (figure 1).
6. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seppelin et al. (US-20150344260-A1).
With respect to claim 28, Seppelin et al. (figure 5) disclose a method of controlling the post-extrusion linear shrinkage of a buffer tube surrounding one or more optical fibers, comprising: driving the buffer tube (extruder 20 form a tube) separately form the one or more optical fibers (15) ([0034]) at a speed greater than that of the one or more optical fibers (15) ([0035]), and controlling the relative speed of the buffer tube (the pair of pulleys 1 and 2 is arranged to pull the first optical fiber element with a higher speed, [0035]) relative to the one or more optical fibers (15) to maintain a defined difference in length of the buffer tube (obtain a tube that is slightly longer, [0035]) relative to the one or more optical fibers (15).
PNG
media_image2.png
282
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
10. Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seppelin et al. (as cited above).
With respect to claims 29-30, Seppelin et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except the difference in length is an increase in length of the buffer tube relative to the one or more optical fibers and is maintained substantially at between 1% and 5% of the length of the one or more optical fibers and the increase in length of the buffer tube relative to the one or more optical fibers is maintained substantially at 3% of the length of the one or more optical fibers.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Seppelin to form the difference in length is an increase in length of the buffer tube relative to the one or more optical fibers and is maintained substantially at between 1% and 5% of the length of the one or more optical fibers and the increase in length of the buffer tube relative to the one or more optical fibers is maintained substantially at 3% of the length of the one or more optical fibers as claimed, because the dimensions can be varied depending upon the device in a particular application.
11. Claims 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seppelin et al. (as cited above) in view of Strong et al. (as cited above).
With respect to claim 31, Seppelin et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the driving of the buffer tube includes engaging the buffer tube with at least two capstans that clamp the buffer tube in a first plane, each capstan comprising two opposing wheels that engage and drive the buffer tube.
However, Strong et al. teach a device including the driving of the buffer tube includes engaging the buffer tube with at least two capstans (60, 70) that clamp the buffer tube (40) in a first plane, each capstan comprising two opposing wheels that engage and drive the buffer tube (40) (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Seppelin et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Strong) for the purpose of achieving tension-controlled ramping (column 4, line 15).
With respect to claim 33, Seppelin et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of claimed invention except the capstans wheels are all driven at the same speed.
However, Strong et al. teach a device including the capstans wheels (figure 1) are all driven at the same speed (figure 1 and column 3, line 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Seppelin et al. to include the above features (accordance with the teaching of Strong) for the purpose of achieving tension-controlled ramping (column 4, line 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 26, 32 and 34-39 are 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the capstan system, wherein the clamping pressure adjustment system includes a pneumatic actuator as recited in claim 26; the method, wherein the driving of the buffer tube comprises engaging the buffer tube with at least two capstans that clamp the buffer tube in a first plane, and at least two capstans that clamp the buffer tube in a second plane perpendicular to the first plane as recited in claim 32; wherein the gross linear speed of the buffer tube is adjusted by changing a size of the capstan wheels or changing the rotational speed of the capstan wheels as recited in claim 34 and wherein the fine excess linear speed of the buffer tube relative to the linear speed of the one or more optical fibers is adjusted by changing the pressure exerted on the buffer tube by the capstans as recited in claim 35.
Claims 36-39 depend from claim 34.
13. Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a buffer tube clencher for elongating a buffer tube in a cable element manufacturing machine as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 15. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a cable element manufacturing machine as set forth in claim 15.
Claims 16-17 depend from claim 15.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest all the limitations of claim 18. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a method of forming a cable element as set forth in claim 18.
Claims 19-20 depend from claim 18.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parris et al. (US-9195019-B1) disclose a low shrink buffer tube. Casals et al. (US-8406590-B2) disclose an optical cable.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm.
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 on 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 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.
/JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874