CTNF 18/716,605 CTNF 77133 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on June 5, 2024 have all been considered and made of record except for the lined-through foreign patent documents for which no copies were provided (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449). Drawings Five (5) sheets of drawings were filed on June 5, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner. Specification Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Inventorship 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10 is 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 10, the claim recites the limitation “wherein an outer diameter of the protection tube is less than the outer diameter of the optical fiber excluding the protection tube + 2mm” in lines 5-6. This limitation is confusing. Should “excluding the protection tube” be -- , excluding the protection tube , -- such that the claim requires that the diameter of the protection tube is less than the diameter of the fiber + 2mm. Should there “excluding the protection tube” be -- , excluding the protection tube – such that the claim requires that the diameter of the protection tube is less than the diameter of the fiber minus the sum of the diameter of the protection tube plus 2 mm? For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret this limitation to mean that the diameter of the protection tube is less than the diameter of the fiber + 2 mm. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder et al. (US 2019/0293887 A1), hereafter Bookbinder, in view of DeMeritt et al. (US 2013/0156377 A1), hereafter DeMerit, and Follingstad (US 2017/0102504 A1) . Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, and 9; Bookbinder discloses an optical fiber cable (cable 10; see Figure 1; see Table 5; see paragraphs 36, 111-113) comprising: a plurality of optical fibers (optical fibers 20; optical fiber 110) each of which includes a core portion (core 112; see Figure 8; see paragraph 103), a clad portion (cladding 120; see Figure 8; see paragraph 103) covering a periphery of the core portion (112), and a coating portion (one or more protective layers outside of the cladding portion; see paragraph 104) covering a periphery of the clad portion (120); and a cable sheath (12) which accommodates the plurality of optical fibers (20), wherein a density of the plurality of optical fibers in the optical fiber cable is 6.5 fibers/mm 2 or more and 9.0 fibers/mm 2 or less (see Table 5: Examples 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14); wherein inside the cable sheath (12), the plurality of optical fibers (20) are bundled into a plurality of subunits (22), and wherein outer circumferences of the plurality of subunits are coated with a subunit coating portion (30) containing a flame retardant material (see paragraph 48); wherein a coating thickness of the subunit coating portion (30) is between 0.05 mm and 0.5 mm (see Table 5). Bookbinder does not disclose a multi-fiber connector capable of connecting the plurality of optical fibers with 24 or more fibers is arranged at one end of the plurality of optical fibers, wherein the number of the plurality of optical fibers that can be connected by the multi-fiber connector are 96 fibers or more The examiner takes Official notice that it’s well-known in the art to provide a multi-fiber connector, such as a mechanical transfer, MT, connector, standard multi-fiber termination connectors, MPO and MTP connectors. For example, DeMeritt et al. teaches that an MTP connector (26) may be provided at the end of a fiber optic cable (22), wherein the MTP connector is a standard connector type allowing for connections of a large number of fibers (28), including hundreds (see paragraphs 33 and 34; see Figures 2A and 2B); and Follingstad teaches that standard multi-fiber connectors (34) include MPO/MTP connectors (24 fiber MPO) and may be factory installed on a cable (20); see paragraph 25 and Figures 5-7). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a multi-fiber connector capable of connection the plurality of optical fibers with 24 or more fibers arranged at one end of the plurality of optical fibers to the cable of Bookbinder, wherein the number of the plurality of optical fibers that can be connected by the multi- fiber connector are 96 fibers or more, for the purpose of providing a standard type of connector commonly employed in optical fibers systems to connect the cable as desired. Regarding claim 8; The examiner takes Official notice that it’s known in the prior art to provide flame retardant materials in coating portions of optical fibers. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide the coating portion of the plurality of optical fibers forming the subunit containing a flame retardant material for the purpose of providing protection to the optical fibers and providing fibers suitable for an intended use in an higher temperature environment. Regarding claim 10; Follingstad further discloses a protection tube (protective sleeve 36) accommodating the multi-fiber connector (34) provided at the end of the optical fiber cable (20), but fails to specify a particular diameter for the protection tube. The protection tube of Follingstad has a diameter that is slightly larger than the optical cable diameter (see Figure 6), and thus falls within a range of the diameter of the cable ± an additional amount. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a protection tube accommodating multi-fiber connectors provided at the end of Bookbinder since this is an arrangement of prior art, and to further have the outer diameter of the protection tube is less than the outer diameter of the optical fiber cable excluding the protection tube + 2 mm, such that the tube is large enough to accommodate the cable and the connectors, but small enough for deployment in a desired area, 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, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art ( In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device ( In re 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)). Regarding claim 11; The examiner takes Official notice that optical fiber cable connections systems are known to connect optical fiber cable with indoor optical fiber cables having standard multi-fiber connectors with 24 or more fibers at one end, wherein a portion between the optical fiber cable and the indoor optical fiber cable is covered by a junction box for the purpose of providing connection to a customer premises while allowing for access, replacement, repair, and maintenance at a junction box located thereat. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an optical fiber cable connection system which connects an optical fiber cable according to claim 1 with an indoor optical fiber cable having a multi-fiber connector with 24 or more fibers at one end, wherein a connection portion between the optical fiber cable and the indoor optical fiber cable is covered by a junction box for the purpose of using the cable to transmit signals to and from a customer premises with a standard optical fiber connection system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (US 2020/0142144 A1), hereafter Blazer, in view of DeMeritt et al. (US 2013/0156377 A1), hereafter DeMerit, and Follingstad (US 2017/0102504 A1) . Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 9; Blazer discloses an optical fiber cable (cable 10; see Figures 1 and 2) comprising: a plurality of optical fibers (optical fibers 14) each of which includes a core portion, a clad portion covering a periphery of the core portion, and a coating portion covering a periphery of the clad portion (see paragraph 92); and a cable sheath (12) which accommodates the plurality of optical fibers (14), wherein a density of the plurality of optical fibers in the optical fiber cable is 6.5 fibers/mm 2 or more and 9.0 fibers/mm 2 or less (see Table 1); wherein the plurality of optical fibers of 1728 fibers or more are accommodated inside the cable sheath (see paragraph 84); wherein an outer diameter of the plurality of optical fibers is less than 200 μm (see paragraph 93; special bend fibers having diameters of 185 microns or less may be used to increase fiber density); wherein silicone is added to the cable sheath (see paragraph 71) Blazer does not disclose a multi-fiber connector capable of connecting the plurality of optical fibers with 24 or more fibers is arranged at one end of the plurality of optical fibers, wherein the number of the plurality of optical fibers that can be connected by the multi-fiber connector are 96 fibers or more The examiner takes Official notice that it’s well-known in the art to provide a multi-fiber connector, such as a mechanical transfer, MT, connector, standard multi-fiber termination connectors, MPO and MTP connectors. For example, DeMerit et al. teaches that an MTP connector (26) may be provided at the end of a fiber optic cable (22), wherein the MTP connector is a standard connector type allowing for connections of a large number of fibers (28), including hundreds (see paragraphs 33 and 34; see Figures 2A and 2B); and Follingstad teaches that standard multi-fiber connectors (34) include MPO/MTP connectors (24 fiber MPO) and may be factory installed on a cable (20); see paragraph 25 and Figures 5-7). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a multi-fiber connector capable of connection the plurality of optical fibers with 24 or more fibers arranged at one end of the plurality of optical fibers to the cable of Blazer, wherein the number of the plurality of optical fibers that can be connected by the multi- fiber connector are 96 fibers or more, for the purpose of providing a standard type of connector commonly employed in optical fibers systems to connect the cable as desired. Regarding claim 8; The examiner takes Official notice that it’s known in the prior art to provide flame retardant materials in coating portions of optical fibers. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further provide the coating portion of the plurality of optical fibers forming the subunit containing a flame retardant material for the purpose of providing protection to the optical fibers and providing fibers suitable for an intended use in an higher temperature environment. Regarding claim 10; Follingstad further discloses a protection tube (protective sleeve 36) accommodating the multi-fiber connector (34) provided at the end of the optical fiber cable (20), but fails to specify a particular diameter for the protection tube. The protection tube of Follingstad has a diameter that is slightly larger than the optical cable diameter (see Figure 6), and thus falls within a range of the diameter of the cable ± an additional amount. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a protection tube accommodating multi-fiber connectors provided at the end of Blazer since this is an arrangement of prior art, and to further have the outer diameter of the protection tube is less than the outer diameter of the optical fiber cable excluding the protection tube + 2 mm, such that the tube is large enough to accommodate the cable and the connectors, but small enough for deployment in a desired area, 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, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art ( In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device ( In re 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)). Regarding claim 11; The examiner takes Official notice that optical fiber cable connections systems are known to connect optical fiber cable with indoor optical fiber cables having standard multi-fiber connectors with 24 or more fibers at one end, wherein a portion between the optical fiber cable and the indoor optical fiber cable is covered by a junction box for the purpose of providing connection to a customer premises while allowing for access, replacement, repair, and maintenance at a junction box located thereat. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an optical fiber cable connection system which connects an optical fiber cable according to claim 1 with an indoor optical fiber cable having a multi-fiber connector with 24 or more fibers at one end, wherein a connection portion between the optical fiber cable and the indoor optical fiber cable is covered by a junction box for the purpose of using the cable to transmit signals to and from a customer premises with a standard optical fiber connection system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder et al. (US 2019/0293887 A1), hereafter Bookbinder, in view of DeMeritt et al. (US 2013/0156377 A1), hereafter DeMerit, and Follingstad (US 2017/0102504 A1), and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 11,841,529 B2), hereafter Hasegawa . Regarding claim 4; Bookbinder, DeMerit, and Follingstad teach and/or suggest the optical fiber cable according to claim 1, wherein a fluctuation range of an outer diameter of the clad portion is ± 0.5 μm or less. Optical fibers are known to be drawn with a cladding outer diameter variation ranging from 0.1 μm to 0.5 μm (see Hasegawa, column 5, lines 30-35). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select optical fibers manufactured by a method that allows for a fluctuation range of an outer dimeter of the clad portion to be within the range of ± 0.5 μm or less for the purpose of accurately determining how many optical fibers may fit within the desired cable structure . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (US 2020/0142144 A1), hereafter Blazer, in view of DeMeritt et al. (US 2013/0156377 A1), hereafter DeMerit, and Follingstad (US 2017/0102504 A1), and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 11,841,529 B2), hereafter Hasegawa . Regarding claim 4; Blazer, DeMerit, and Follingstad teach and/or suggest the optical fiber cable according to claim 1, wherein a fluctuation range of an outer diameter of the clad portion is ± 0.5 μm or less. Optical fibers are known to be drawn with a cladding outer diameter variation ranging from 0.1 μm to 0.5 μm (see Hasegawa, column 5, lines 30-35). Thus, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select optical fibers manufactured by a method that allows for a fluctuation range of an outer dimeter of the clad portion to be within the range of ± 0.5 μm or less for the purpose of accurately determining how many optical fibers may fit within the desired cable structure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 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, 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. /MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 6 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 7 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 8 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 9 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 10 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 11 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 12 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 13 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/716,605 Page 14 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights