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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 29, 2025 and June 21, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Four (4) sheets of drawings were filed on June 21, 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
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima et al. (JP 2002-122762 A), hereafter Nakajima.
Regarding claims 1 and 4; Nakajima discloses a slot-less optical cable (see Figure 3) comprising:
a plurality of optical fiber units (optical fiber ribbons 9) each including a plurality of optical fibers; and
a cable sheath (13) covering the plurality of optical fiber units (9),
wherein the plurality of optical fiber units (9) are stranded together along a longitudinal direction of the optical cable, and
a twist ratio of the stranding of the plurality of optical fiber units is at least partially 0.0014 (rad/mm) or more (see the abstract);
wherein the plurality of optical fiber units (9) are stranded back in a stranding direction.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekiguchi et al. (JP 2007-226051 A), hereafter Sekiguchi.
Regarding claims 1 and 4; Sekiguchi discloses a slot-less optical cable (see Figure 9) comprising:
a plurality of optical fiber units (25) each including a plurality of optical fibers (26); and
a cable sheath (43) covering the plurality of optical fiber units (25),
wherein the plurality of optical fiber units (25) are stranded together along a longitudinal direction of the optical cable, and
a twist ratio of the stranding of the plurality of optical fiber units is at least partially 0.0014 (rad/mm) or more (see Table 3, examples 7 and 8, the pitch of 500 mm provides a twist ratio of approximately 0.126 rad/mm wherein pitch is 1 turn per unit length and 1 turn is equivalent to 2πrad; pitch of 250 mm provides a twist ratio of approximately 0.025 rad/mm);
wherein the plurality of optical fiber units (25) are stranded back in a stranding direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP 2002-122762 A), hereafter Nakajima, in view of Sato et al. (US 2020/0041739 A1).
Regarding claim 2; Nakajima the optical cable according to claim 1. Nakajima fails to disclose wherein the plurality of optical fibers include optical fibers having an outer diameter of 220 μm or less, and the plurality of optical fibers form an optical fiber ribbon with fiber adhesive parts and non-adhesive parts in which a coupling portion and a non-coupling portion are intermittently provided in the longitudinal direction in a state where the plurality of optical fibers are arranged in parallel in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, the coupling portion being a state where adjacent optical fibers of some or all of the plurality of optical fibers are coupled, the non-coupling portion being a state where the adjacent optical fibers are not coupled.
Nakajima does disclose that the optical fibers are provided in ribbons (9).
Intermittently bonded optical fibers ribbons are well known in the art and are known to provide for smaller diameter optical fibers in a twisting configuration due to the intermittent bonding which make them more flexible as opposed to bonding along the length of the fiber. Sato discloses intermittently bonded fiber ribbons (20) comprising a plurality of optical fibers (21) having an outer diameter of 220 μm or less (see paragraph 24), and the plurality of optical fibers (21) form an optical fiber ribbon with fiber adhesive parts (22) and non-adhesive parts (23) in which a coupling portion and a non-coupling portion are intermittently provided in the longitudinal direction in a state where the plurality of optical fibers (see Figure 2A) are arranged in parallel in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, the coupling portion being a state where adjacent optical fibers of some or all of the plurality of optical fibers are coupled, the non-coupling portion being a state where the adjacent optical fibers are not coupled, the intermittently bonded fiber ribbons suitable for twisting and forming a slotless optical fiber cable (10; see the abstract; see paragraph 1; see Figures 1 and 4 of Sato) including a plurality of fiber units (33) each having a plurality of optical fibers, and a cable sheath (12), wherein the plurality of optical fiber units (33) are stranded back in a stranding direction.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use intermittently bonded optical fiber ribbons, as disclosed by Sato, as the ribbons in the inventio of Nakajima thereby providing fiber ribbons meeting all of the claimed limitations, or alternatively to form the slotless cable of Sato (see Figures 1 and 4) with the pitch taught by Nakajima for the purpose of providing the slotless cable of Sato that is capable of suppressing polarization mode dispersion (see the abstract of Nakajima).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP 2002-122762 A), hereafter Nakajima.
Regarding claim 3; Nakajima discloses the optical cable according to claim 1, but fails to specify that an upper limit value of the twist ratio is 0.0100 (rad/mm) or less. Nakajima discloses examples 1-12 (see page 3) having a range of values ranging up to 0.01256 rad/mm, which is on the same order of magnitude as 0.0100 rad/mm and includes all of the values within the claimed range. 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 an upper limit value of the twist ratio to be any desired value within the same order of magnitude taught by Nakajima, including 0.0100 rad/mm, for the purpose of obtaining desired optical transmission results, 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)).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nakajima et al. (JP 2002-122762 A), hereafter Nakajima, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakajima (JP 2002-122762 A) in view of Sato et al. (US 2020/0041739 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 7; Nakajima and Sato disclose and/or suggest the slot-less optical cable of claims 1-4 (see the rejection of claims 1-4), and a corresponding method for manufacturing a slot-less optical cable (cable in Figure 3 of Nakajima; or cable 10 of Sato, see Figures 1 and 4 of Sato) that includes a plurality of optical fiber units (9 of Nakajima; or 33 of Sato) each including a plurality of optical fibers, and a cable sheath (13 of Nakajima or 43 of Sato) covering the plurality of optical fiber units, the method comprising:
stranding the plurality of optical fiber units (9 of Nakajima or 33 of Sato) along a longitudinal direction of the optical cable; and
covering the plurality of optical fiber units with the cable sheath (13 of Nakajima or 43 of Sato),
wherein in the stranding, a twist ratio of the stranding of the plurality of optical fiber units is at least partially set to 0.0014 (rad/mm) or more (see the abstract of Nakajima; alternatively by stranding the otpical fiber units 33 of Sato at a twist ratio of at least 0.0104 rad/mm as taught by Nakajima for the purpose of providing the cable of Sato within lowered polarization mode dispersion);
wherein the stranding includes stranding back the plurality of optical fiber units in a stranding direction (see Figure 9 of Nakajima; see Figures 1 and 4 of Sato).
Regarding claim 7; The method for manufacturing an optical cable according to claim 5, wherein the stranding includes stranding back the plurality of optical fiber units in a stranding direction.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakajima et al. (JP 2002-122762 A), hereafter Nakajima.
Regarding claim 6; Nakajima discloses the optical cable according to claim 1, but fails to specify that an upper limit value of the twist ratio is 0.0100 (rad/mm) or less. Nakajima discloses examples 1-12 (see page 3) having a range of values ranging up to 0.01256 rad/mm, which is on the same order of magnitude as 0.0100 rad/mm and includes all of the values within the claimed range. 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 an upper limit value of the twist ratio to be any desired value within the same order of magnitude taught by Nakajima, including 0.0100 rad/mm, for the purpose of obtaining desired optical transmission results, 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)).
Claim 6 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakajima (JP 2002-122762 A) in view of Sato et al. (US 2020/0041739 A1), hereafter Sato.
Regarding claim 6; Nakajima and Sato suggest the optical cable according to claim 1, but fail to specify that an upper limit value of the twist ratio is 0.0100 (rad/mm) or less. Nakajima discloses examples 1-12 (see page 3) having a range of values ranging up to 0.01256 rad/mm, which is on the same order of magnitude as 0.0100 rad/mm and includes all of the values within the claimed range. 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 an upper limit value of the twist ratio to be any desired value within the same order of magnitude taught by Nakajima, including 0.0100 rad/mm, for the purpose of obtaining desired optical transmission results, 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)).
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
Prosecution Insights