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 July 5th, 2024 is 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 § 112
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.
Claims 8, and 10-11 are 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. Examination below applies art to these claims as best understood.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim defines the method of repairing a repairing a cable. The cable repaired is defined by the method of claim 1. Claim 8 is unclear for the following reasons.
First is unclear whether the scope of claim 8 requires that the cable being repaired be manufactured by performance of the steps of Claim 1, or whether it requires only a cable having the structure resulting from the manufacturing method of Claim 1, such that a cable of identical structure produced by a different method would fall outside the scope of claim 8.
Second, claim 8 requires “identifying a location of a break or failure in the fiber optic element”. The claim implies that the manufacturing method of claim 1 will result in a cable having a break or failure in the fiber optic element, but it is unclear why the method of claim 1 will result in such a cable. Alternatively claim 8 can be understood to be performed on a cable manufactured by the method of claim 1, that has gone some additional steps which resulted in the break or failure. In other words, claim 8 requires a break or failure, but it is unclear how the break or failure occurred. Is the break or failure a manufacturing defect or is it a result of using the cable, or something else such as processing steps that occur between the method steps of claim 1 and the method steps of claim 8?
Third, the claim limitation which identifies the location of a break or failure, does not define how the location is identified. Is this done through some visual inspection of the cable, or is the cable put under some type of test which sends a signal through the fiber optic element?
For all of the above stated reasons the metes and bounds of Claim 8 unclear.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim depends from Claim 7, yet recites “the spliced region of fiber optic element”, lacking antecedent basis. A “spliced region” is introduced only in Claim 8, the claim appears to depend from the wrong base claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim depends from Claim 7, yet recites “the replacement length”, “the removed length”, “the repair region”, and “with replacement section”, none of which have antecedent basis in Claim 7, all are introduced in Claim 8.
For prior art examination, claims 10 and 11 will be treated as being dependent on claim 8. The applicant is advised to amend Claims 10 and 11 to depend from Claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US20050123254 A1) in view of Risch et al. (US6066397 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Oh et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a composite electric power cable, comprising:
assembling inner layers of the composite electric power cable, wherein the inner layers comprise at least one electric conductor (1/2/4) (paragraph 0030; Fig. 1)
adding a data transmission layer comprising a plurality of optical elements and at least one fiber optic element (13) (paragraphs 0033, 0036-0037; Claim 1) by winding the plurality of optical elements helically around the inner layers and winding the at least one fiber optic element between at least two of optical elements (paragraphs 0050-0056; Fig. 1)
Oh et al. does not expressly teach that the plurality of helically wound optical elements are polypropylene bolts. Risch et al. expressly teaches a plurality of polypropylene bolts helically wound about a central member (Figs. 1-2; Claim 1; Col. 2, 42-67, Col. 3, 4-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to form the plurality of optical elements of Oh et al. from polypropylene bolts, as taught by Risch et al., as the swap is a substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of keeping the cable structure intact and maintaining the round structure of the data transmission layer.
Regarding Claim 2, Oh et al. in view of Risch et al. teaches that winding the plurality of polypropylene bolts helically around the inner layers and winding the at least one fiber optic element between at least two of the polypropylene bolts are done simultaneously (Oh et al. paragraphs 0032, 0036, 0051).
Regarding Claim 4, Oh et al. further teaches providing the at least one fiber optic element within a tube, and wherein the step of adding the data transmission layer is performed by winding the tube helically around the inner layers between at least two of the polypropylene bolts (paragraph 0037; Claim 1), the propylene bolts limitation being met by the combination mentioned in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Oh et al. further teaches the step of providing the at least one fiber optic element within a tube comprises providing the fiber optic elements within a metallic tube (paragraph 0033, Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Oh et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a composite electric power cable, comprising:
assembling inner layers of the composite electric power cable, wherein the inner layers comprise at least one electric conductor (1/2/4) (paragraph 0030; Fig. 1)
adding a data transmission layer comprising a plurality of optical elements and at least one fiber optic element (13) (paragraphs 0033, 0036-0037; Claim 1) by winding the plurality of optical elements helically around the inner layers and winding the at least one fiber optic element between at least two of optical elements (paragraphs 0050-0056; Fig. 1)
Oh et al. does not expressly teach that the plurality of helically wound optical elements are polypropylene bolts. Risch et al. expressly teaches a plurality of polypropylene bolts helically wound about a central member (Figs. 1-2; Claim 1; Col. 2, 42-67, Col. 3, 4-15) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to form the plurality of optical elements of Oh et al. from polypropylene bolts, as taught by Risch et al., as the swap is a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, Oh et al. further teaches that the at least one fiber optic element is arranged within a tube, and wherein the tube is wound helically around the inner layers (paragraphs 0033-0037; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Oh et al. further teaches that the tube is a metallic tube, such as stainless steel or other steel alloy (paragraph 0033).
Claims 3, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US20050123254 A1) in view of Risch et al. (US6066397 A) and Winter et al. (US4580874 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Oh et al. and Risch et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches adding an armoring layer over the data transmission layer. Winter et al. expressly teaches adding an armoring layer over the data transmission layer (Col. 1, 14-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add an armoring layer over the data transmission layer to protect it during installation, per the admitted conventional practice.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Oh et al. and Risch et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches the step for repairing the composite electric power cable. Winter et al. expressly teaches a method for repairing a composite electric power cable, comprising:
identifying a location of a break or failure in the fiber optic element (Col. 5, 36-44)
removing sections of polypropylene bolts on both sides of the identified location, thereby defining a repair region (Col. 5, 50-59; Claim 2)
making a first cut of the fiber optic element on a first side of the identified location (Col. 5, 50 – Col. 6, 3)
making a second cut of the fiber optic element on a second side of the identified location (Col. 5, 50 – Col. 6, 3)
removing a section of the fiber optic element between the first cut and the second cut (Col. 5, 50 – Col. 6, 3)
providing a replacement section of optical fiber having a length at least equal to the removed section of fiber optic element (Col. 6, 10-57)
splicing a first end of the replacement section to the first cut of the fiberoptic element, forming a first spliced region (Col. 6, 10-57)
splicing a second end of the replacement section to the second cut of the fiber optic element, forming a second spliced region (Col. 6, 10-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to repair the Claim 1 cable with the method taught by Winter et al., to restore the helically wound fiber optic element without replacing the entire cable as excising a damaged span and splicing in a replacement length at both ends is a predictable use of known repair techniques in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Winter et al. further teaches adding a protection device to the spliced region of fiber optic element, such as tape, heat shrink sleeve, nylon straps, etc. (Col. 8, 16-26; Col. 9, 6-16; Figs. 4-6).
Regarding Claim 17, Oh et al. and Risch et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches adding an armoring layer over the data transmission layer. Winter et al. expressly teaches adding an armoring layer over the data transmission layer (Col. 1, 14-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add an armoring layer over the data transmission layer to protect it during installation, per the admitted conventional practice.
Claims 6-7, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US20050123254 A1) in view of Risch et al. (US6066397 A) and Birkeland et al. (US6714709 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Oh et al. and Risch et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches that the tube has an outer diameter of 40% to 120% of the outer diameter of the polypropylene bolts. Birkeland et al. expressly teaches a fiber optic element within a tube where the tube has an outer diameter of 40% to 120% of the outer diameter of the polypropylene bolts (Col. 1, 60 - Col. 2, 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to size the optical element of the combination of Oh and Risch et al. within 40%-120% of the polypropylene bolts as taught by Winter et al., so the bolts mechanically support/protect the element and maintain a uniform, round cross-section.
Regarding Claim 7, Birkeland et al. further teaches that the tube has an outer diameter of ca. 50% to 100% of the outer diameter of the polypropylene bolts (Col. 1, 60 - Col. 2, 10; Col. 2, 33-43).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Oh et al. and Risch et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches that the tube has an outer diameter of 40% to 120% of the outer diameter of the polypropylene bolts. Birkeland et al. expressly teaches a fiber optic element within a tube where the tube has an outer diameter of 40% to 120% of the outer diameter of the polypropylene bolts (Col. 1, 60 - Col. 2, 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to size the optical element of the combination of Oh and Risch et al. within 40%-120% of the polypropylene bolts as taught by Birkeland et al., so the bolts mechanically support/protect the element and maintain a uniform, round cross-section.
Regarding Claim 16, Birkeland et al. further teaches that the tube has an outer diameter of ca. 50% to 100% of the outer diameter of the polypropylene bolts (Col. 1, 60 - Col. 2, 10; Col. 2, 33-43).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US20050123254 A1) in view of Risch et al. (US6066397 A), Birkeland et al. (US6714709 B1) and Winter et al. (US4580874 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Oh et al., Risch et al. and Birkeland teach all the limitations of the parent claim. These references do not expressly teach adding an armoring layer over the data transmission layer. Winter et al. expressly teaches adding an armoring layer over the data transmission layer (Col. 1, 14-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add an armoring layer over the data transmission layer to protect it during installation, per the admitted conventional practice.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US20050123254 A1) in view of Risch et al. (US6066397 A) and Winter et al. (US4580874 A), in further view of Bossard et al. (US4805979 A).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Oh, Risch, and Winter et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches that the length of the replacement length of fiber optic element is larger than the length of the removed length of fiber optic element, and wherein the step of winding the fiber optic element with replacement section around the inner layers is performed winding the optic element with replacement section over the inner layers in the repair region. Bossard et al. expressly teaches the length of the replacement length of fiber optic element is larger than the length of the removed length of fiber optic element, and wherein the step of winding the fiber optic element with replacement section around the inner layers is performed winding the optic element with replacement section over the inner layers in the repair region (Col. 1, 12-20; Col. 2, 60 – Col. 3, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide a replacement section longer than the removed section and to wind the overlength over the inner layers in the repair region to ease the splicing operation and accommodate future re-splicing without rebuilding the line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 at 5712701739. 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.
/NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights