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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/16/24 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins et al. (US 4,743,085).
Re. Claim 1, Jenkins et al. discloses an optical fiber cable 20 comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers 23 (Figs. 1-2; col. 4 lines 1-6);
a cable sheath 36 covering the plurality of optical fibers (Figs. 1-2; col. 4 lines 21-25); and
a plurality of tension members 42/52 embedded in the cable sheath,
wherein the plurality of tension members are arranged without gaps along a circumferential direction of the optical fiber cable to surround the plurality of optical fibers (Figs. 1-2; col. 4 lines 51-66; col. 5 lines 51-55).
Re. Claim 2, Jenkins discloses the plurality of tension members are made of fiber-reinforced plastic (col. 4 lines 41-44 and 54-60).
Re. Claim 3, Jenkins et al. discloses the plurality of tension members are stranded along a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber cable (Fig. 1).
Re. Claim 4, Jenkins et al. discloses the plurality of tension members comprise: a plurality of inner tension members 42 arranged along the circumferential direction to surround the plurality of optical fibers; and a plurality of outer tension members 52 arranged along the circumferential direction to surround the plurality of inner tension members (Figs. 1-2; col. 4 lines 51-66).
Re. Claim 5, Jenkins et al. discloses the plurality of inner tension members are stranded in a first rotation direction along a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber cable, and wherein the plurality of outer tension members are stranded in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1; col. 4 lines 62-66).
Re. Claims 8-9, Jenkins discloses the optical fiber cable as discussed above. Since the structure recited within the reference is substantially identical to the claimed invention, the properties or characteristics (e.g., “a bending stiffness in a radial direction of the optical fiber cable over an entire circumference of the optical fiber cable is within a range of 1.0 N.m² to 9.0 N.m²” and “a difference between maximum and minimum values of a bending stiffness in a radial direction of the optical fiber cable over an entire circumference of the optical fiber cable is within a range of 0.5 N.m² to 1.0 N-m²”) may be presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Debban et al. (US 4,743,085).
Re. Claim 1, Debban et al. discloses an optical fiber cable 10 comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers 16 (Figs. 1-4; col. 2 lines 46);
a cable sheath 14/22 covering the plurality of optical fibers (Figs. 1-2A; col. 4 lines 41-44); and
a plurality of tension members 24 embedded in the cable sheath,
wherein the plurality of tension members are arranged without gaps along a circumferential direction of the optical fiber cable to surround the plurality of optical fibers (Figs. 1-2A; col. 4 lines 41-45).
Re. Claim 3, Debban et al. discloses the plurality of tension members are stranded along a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber cable (Fig. 1 col. 4 lines 44-45).
Re. Claims 8-9, Debban discloses the optical fiber cable as discussed above. Since the structure recited within the reference is substantially identical to the claimed invention, the properties or characteristics (e.g., “a bending stiffness in a radial direction of the optical fiber cable over an entire circumference of the optical fiber cable is within a range of 1.0 N.m² to 9.0 N.m²” and “a difference between maximum and minimum values of a bending stiffness in a radial direction of the optical fiber cable over an entire circumference of the optical fiber cable is within a range of 0.5 N.m² to 1.0 N-m²”) may be presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debban et al. (US 4,743,085).
Re. Claim 6, Debban et al. discloses the optical fiber cable as discussed above. Moreover, Debban et al. discloses the cable sheath comprises: an inner cable sheath 14; and an outer cable sheath 22 covering the inner cable sheath, wherein the plurality of tension members 24 are arranged between the inner cable sheath and the outer cable sheath, and wherein the outer cable sheath is made of flame-retardant polyethylene (Figs. 1-2A; col. 4 lines 41-47).
However, Debban et al. does not disclose the flame-retardant material of the outer cable sheath has a release agent added thereto. Also, Debban et al does not disclose the inner cable sheath is made of flame-retardant polyethylene to which no
release agent is added.
Each of the claimed materials is well known in the cable arts and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a cable with desired fire suppression characteristics. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 8/13/26
Prosecution Insights