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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022/036649 , filed on September 04, 2021.
Inventorship
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed July 09, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amendment claim 1 to include “the low-density region does not include any of the connection parts, and LS > 5.0 cm is satisfied, where LS is a dimension of the low-density region in the longitudinal direction.” The applicant argues the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the above limitation of amended claim 1.
The examiner disagrees.
Any portion of device of Tetsuya et al. without connection parts could be considered as the low-density regions and meet the limitation of amended claim 1.
Looking to FIG. 1 and 2 of Tetsuya et al., modifying the portion of device with no connection part with the dimensions greater than or equal to 5.0cm would be obvious since the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Applicant has provided a brief description of the interview on June 10, 2026.
Examiner detailed interview description can be found in the interview summary mailed June 15, 2026.
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.
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.
Claim 1-2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya (JP2020181048A).
Regarding claim 1, Tetsuya discloses an optical fiber ribbon (FIG. 1, 2 and 3. Optical Fiber Ribbon 1) comprising: Optical fibers (Optical fibers 3) disposed in a disposition direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber ribbon (FIG. 1-3) ; and connection parts(Bonding parts 5) each disposed between and connecting two or more of the optical fibers adjacent in the disposition direction, wherein the connection parts are disposed intermittently in the longitudinal direction and disposition direction(FIG. 1-3), the optical fiber ribbon has a first high-density region(short pitch range 9a) and a low-density region adjacent in the longitudinal direction(high pitch range 9b), two or more of the connection parts, having different position from each other in the longitudinal direction and the disposition direction are disposed in the first high-density region(FIG 1 and 3b), a number density of the connection parts in the low-density region is lower than a number density of the connection parts in the first high-density regions(FIG 1 and 3b), Tetsuya fails to explicitly disclose and when an edge of the low-density region on a side opposite to the first high-density region is brought closer to the first high-density region in the longitudinal direction in a state in which the first high-density region is fixed, and a tension of 100 gf is applied to the entire optical fiber ribbon, a maximum value of an amount of increase in transmission loss occurring in light with a wavelength of 1550 nm propagating through the optical fiber is l dB or less (this feature is a resulting property of the optical fiber ribbon rather than a distinct structural feature. The specification, Par. [0055], of the current application, states that “when the dimension LS of the low-density region S in the longitudinal direction X is set to 5.0 cm or more, it is possible to make a maximum value of the amount of increase in transmission loss in the kink test 1 dB or less, regardless of the Young's modulus of the primary layer 22a. This structural feature is disclosed in Par. [0021] of Tetsuya “the length L 1 of the long pitch range 9b is about 50 to 100 mm”. Therefore, the optical fiber ribbon on Tetsuya would exhibit the claimed resulting property which is implicitly disclosed in Tetsuya).
Tetsuya fails to discloses a LS ( long pitch region 9b) does not include any of the connection parts, and LS greater than or equal to 5.0 cm is satisfied, where LS is a dimension of the low-density region in the longitudinal direction.
However, any portion of the device of Tetsuya without connections parts could be considered the low-density regions without requiring the removal of long pitch range 9b. Additionally modifying the low density region with no connection part to be greater than or equal to 5.0 cm would be a matter of discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the areas of no connection parts to claim dimension 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, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 2, Tetsuya discloses device of claim 1, wherein, when the end edge of the low-density region rotates four times around a rotation axis parallel to the longitudinal direction in a state in which the first high-density region is fixed and a tension of 100 gf is applied to the entire optical fiber ribbon, the amount of increase in transmission loss occurring in light with a wavelength of 1550 nm propagating through the optical fiber is 1 dB or less (this feature is a resulting property of the optical fiber ribbon rather than a distinct structural features. The specification, Par. [0055], of the current application, states that “when the dimension LS of the low-density region S in the longitudinal direction X is set to 5.0 cm or more, it is possible to make a maximum value of the amount of increase in transmission loss in the kink test 1 dB or less, regardless of the Young's modulus of the primary layer 22a. This structural feature is disclosed in Par. [0021] of Tetsuya “the length L 1 of the long pitch range 9b is about 50 to 100 mm”. Therefore, the optical fiber ribbon on Tetsuya would exhibit the claimed resulting property which is implicitly disclosed in Tetsuya.)
Although the Low density regions is now claimed as an area with no connection parts, for reasons mention with regard to claim 1, any area of the device of Tetsuysa without the connection parts could be considered the low-density regions without requiring the removal of long pitch range 9b; and modifying said regions to meet the limitations of claim 2 would be a matter of discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable
Regarding claim 8, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya further discloses a pair of outermost fibers disposed outermost sides in the disposition direction(FIG 1-3); and an intermediate fiber disposed between the pair of the outermost fibers in the disposition direction, the connection parts include a boundary connection part disposed at a boundary between the first high density region and the low-density region, and the boundary connection part connects one of the pair of outermost fibers to the intermediate fiber(FIG 1 and 3b).
Regarding claim 9, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya further discloses the connection parts include boundary connection parts disposed at a boundary between the first high-density region and the low-density region and overlapping each other in the disposition direction, and each of the optical fibers contacts any one of the boundary connection parts(FIG. 1 and 2b).
Regarding claim 10, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya further discloses boundary connection parts disposed at a boundary between the first high density region and the low-density region and overlapping each other in the disposition direction(FIG. 1 and 2b); and one or more non-boundary connection parts separated from the boundary, and a total number of the boundary connection parts is equal to or more than a total number of the one or more non-boundary connection parts overlapping in the disposition direction (FIG. 1 and 2b).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
1038
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya further discloses a second high-density region disposed at a position different from the first high-density region in the longitudinal direction and contacting the low-density region in the longitudinal direction, wherein two or more of the connection parts, having different positions from each other in the longitudinal direction and the disposition direction are disposed in the second high-density region, a number density of the connection parts in the second high-density region is higher than a number density of the connection parts in the low-density region (FIG. 1-3), the connection parts include: first boundary connection parts disposed at a boundary between the first high-density region and the low-density region and overlapping each other in the disposition direction (FIG. 1-3); and second boundary connection parts disposed at a boundary between the second high-density region and the low-density region and overlapping each other in the disposition direction, and a disposition pattern of the second boundary connection parts is identical to a disposition pattern of the first boundary connection parts (FIG. 1-3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya (JP2020181048A), in further view of Kaneko et al. (US11927803B2), hereafter Kaneko.
The applied reference has a common Assignee and Inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02
Regarding claim 4, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya fails to disclose a pitch at which the optical fibers are disposed in the disposition direction is larger than a diameter of each of the fibers.
Kaneko teaches the optical fiber ribbon according to claim 1, wherein a pitch at which the optical fibers are disposed in the disposition direction is larger than a diameter of each of the fibers (FIG 1B and 2A).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the optical fiber ribbon of Tetsuya with the ribbon pitch configuration taught by Kaneko, wherein a pitch at which the optical fibers are disposed in the disposition direction is larger than a diameter of each of the fibers, to create a more flexible and easily handleable ribbon (FIG 1B, 2A). The combination would be obvious because it involves substituting a traditional fixed ribbon with a known intermittent ribbon (with specific pitch and fiber diameter relationships) to achieve a predictable improvement in flexibility and density within a slotted core cable system.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya (JP2020181048A), in view of Toshiaki et al (JP2011169937A), hereafter Toshiaki.
Regarding claim 5, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya further discloses the fibers include a pair of outermost fibers disposed at outermost sides in the disposition direction; intermediate fibers disposed between the pair of outermost fibers in the disposition direction, the connection parts include an outermost connection part contacting the pair of outermost fibers(FIG. 1-3); an intermediate connection part connecting two of the intermediate fibers(FIG. 1-3); Tetsuya fails to disclose a dimension of the outermost connection part in the longitudinal direction is larger than a dimension of the intermediate connection part in the longitudinal direction.
Toshiaki teaches a dimension of the outermost connection part in the longitudinal direction is larger than a dimension of the intermediate connection part in the longitudinal direction(FIG. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical ribbon of Tetsuya to include an intermediate connection part connecting two of the intermediate fibers, and to configure the dimension of the outermost connection part in the longitudinal direction to be larger than a dimension of the intermediate connection part in the longitudinal direction (FIG. 3F), as taught by Toshiaki. The motivation to combine the teachings arises from a desire to improve the structural integrity, bendability, and manageability of the intermittent bonding structure in an optical fiber ribbon, while ensuring efficient mass fusion splicing. Using intermediate connection parts that are smaller in the longitudinal direction than the outermost connection parts balances the need to keep the fiber ribbon together (via the outer parts) and allows for better separation of individual fibers for splicing and flexibility, as taught by Toshiaki configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to improve the flexibility or handle the separation of Tetsuya's optical ribbon, would look to Toshiaki's teachings to adjust these relative dimensions as a logical optimization, balancing bonding strength with separation ease. Therefore, implementing Toshiaki's dimensioning strategy into Tetsuya's device is a predictable variation, resulting in known, expected benefits.
Regarding claim 6, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya further discloses a pair of outermost fibers disposed at the outermost sides in the disposition direction (FIG. 1-3); and intermediate fibers disposed between a pair of outermost fibers in the disposition direction (FIG. 1-3) , the connection parts include: an outermost part connecting either the pair of outermost fibers (FIG. 1-3); an intermediate connection part connecting two of the intermediate fibers(FIG. 1-3); Tetsuya fails to disclose an intermediate connection part at a disposition interval of the outermost connection part in the longitudinal direction is smaller than a disposition interval of the intermediate connection part in the longitudinal direction.
Toshiaki teaches an intermediate connection part connecting two of the intermediate fibers, and a disposition interval of the outermost connection part in the longitudinal direction is smaller than a disposition interval of the intermediate connection part in the longitudinal direction(FIG. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber connection device of Tetsuya to include the specific, alternating longitudinal connection intervals taught by Toshiaki (FIG. 4) in order to provide a more durable or customized connection structure for the fiber arrangement. The adjustment of longitudinal spacing (disposition interval) of connection parts between fibers is a design parameter commonly altered to manage mechanical stress, durability, or ease of manufacturing. Choosing to make the outermost connection intervals smaller than the intermediate ones, as shown in Toshiaki, is a logical step to improve structural integrity or accommodate specific cable rigidity requirements.
Regarding claim 7, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya further discloses a boundary connection part disposed at a boundary between the first high-density region and the low-density region(FIG. 3b); and a non-boundary connection part separated from the boundary(FIG. 3b). Tetsuya fails to disclose a dimension of the boundary connection part in the longitudinal direction is larger than a dimension of the non-boundary connection part in the longitudinal direction.
Toshiaki teaches different dimension for connection parts in (FIG. 1, 4, and 7-12). Toshiaki fails to explicitly teach a dimension of the boundary connection part in the longitudinal direction is larger than a dimension of the non-boundary connection part in the longitudinal direction.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tetsuya by adjusting the dimensions of the connection parts based on the teachings of Toshiaki, such that the boundary connection part has a larger longitudinal dimension than the non-boundary connection part, as this represents a matter of routine design choice to optimize performance, such as strengthening the boundary region. Toshiaki teaches differing dimensions for connection parts, suggesting that the sizing of these elements is a flexible parameter. A person of ordinary skill in the art, looking at Tetsuya's boundary and non-boundary connection parts, would find it predictable to size the boundary component differently to achieve, for example, improved stress distribution between different density regions. The difference in size, lacking evidence of a new, unexpected function, is simply a predictable variation of the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
746
1038
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
546
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya (JP2020181048A).
Regarding claim 12, Tetsuysa discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya fails to disclose LS [mm] < 30 [mm] x (A-3S) [gf] / 1.5 [gf] is satisfied, where A is an average value of a tear strength of the connection parts, and S is a standard deviation of the tear strength.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify dimensions of LS to be LS [mm] < 30 [mm] x (A-3S) [gf] / 1.5 [gf] is satisfied, where A is an average value of a tear strength of the connection parts, and S is a standard deviation of the tear strength 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, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Tetsuya discloses the device of claim 1. Tetsuya fails to disclose 1.5 [gf]< A-3S [gf]< A+3S [gf]< 21.0 [gf] is satisfied, where A is an average value of a tear strength of the connection parts, andS is a standard deviation of the tear strength.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the device of Tetsuya with the claimed dimensions 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, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights