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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 8-11, and 16-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 8-11, and 16-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Blazer in view of Towery does not meet the claimed limitation of “at least one weld formed between said first side edge and said second side edge of said armoring layer at said abutment” because Towery discloses a series of welds 46 formed between a side edge of first section 42 and a side edge of second section 44 to extend the steel tape along longitudinal axis 80, not between the first side edge 45 and second side edge 49 of the tape width as claimed (Remarks, pages 8-10). The examiner disagrees. Though Towery does not disclose the welds formed between the two side edges defining a width of an armor layer, Blazer in view of Towery still meets the claimed limitation. Fig. 15 of Blazer already shows an approximate abutment of the first and second side edges 226 and 230, respectively (col. 13, lines 25-27). Blazer further discloses the use of bonding agent or adhesive to attach the opposing lateral edges of the reinforcement layer together (col. 3, lines 43-47) but does not teach that the first and second side edges 226 and 230 are attached to each other by at least one weld formed at the approximate abutment. Towery teaches a series of welds 46 formed at an abutment of the two side edges 43, 47 of two portions 42 and 44 of armor layer 40 to bond the side edges of together (figs. 3-4). In other words, Towery was cited for the use of welds to attach two side edges of an armor layer together, it doesn’t matter if the side edges extend laterally/longitudinally or if the side edges are of one or two amor layer(s). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the welds of Towery as an alternative means to bond the two side edges of Blazer’s reinforcement layer together since Towery teaches that the use of weld can improve coupling strength and resiliency [0021]. Thus, Blazer in view of Towery meets the claimed invention.
Applicant further argued that “Towery teaches a series of welds in recesses 56,” not at ridges of corrugation of the edges as claimed (Remarks, pages 10-11). The examiner disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recesses 56 are considered as inward-facing ridges of the corrugations. Since the claims do not specify that the ridges are outward-facing ridges, Blazer in view of Towery meets the claimed invention. Further, it is noted that the cable structure recited in Blazer/Towery is substantially identical to that of the claims, whether the welds are formed continuously, in series, at all ridges, at alternating ridges, or at valleys to attach the two edges of the armor layer together, the formation or arrangement of the welds does not change the structure of the cable.
This action is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (US 9594226 B2 – herein after Blazer) in view of Towery (WO 2022177866 A1 – cited by Applicant).
Re claims 1 and 17-18, Blazer discloses a communication cable (10) comprising: a cable core (26) including one or more buffer tubes (20), each containing one or more optical fibers (18); an armoring layer (220) surrounding said cable core, wherein said armoring layer is formed as an elongated strip of a metal or alloy material (col. 3, lines 32-33) having a first side and an opposite, second side, and a width defined between a first side edge (226) and a second side edge (230), wherein said width is sufficient to wrap around a cable core and contact said first side edge to said second side edge to form an approximate abutment when said armoring layer surrounds said cable core (fig. 15), wherein said armoring layer is corrugated (col. 3, lines 32-33) to have annular ridges and valleys extending between said first and second side edges (fig. 15); and a jacket (12) extruded over the corrugated armoring layer (col. 7, lines 54-55).
Blazer further discloses the use of bonding agent or adhesive to attach the opposing lateral edges of the reinforcement layer together (col. 3, lines 43-47) but fails to teach at least one weld formed between said first side edge and said second side edge of said armoring layer at said approximate abutment, wherein said at least one weld is a series of welds which occur between said first side edge and said second side edge of said armoring layer.
Towery discloses a series of welds (46) formed between the side edges of the two portions (42 and 44) of armor layer (40; figs. 3 and 4; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the two edges of Blazer’s armor layer by a series of welds as taught by Towery since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, for coupling the armor layer’s side edges to improve coupling strength and resiliency [0021].
Re claim 9, Blazer discloses a communication cable (210) comprising: a cable core (26) including one or more buffer tubes (20), each containing one or more optical fibers (18); an armoring layer 212) surrounding said cable core, wherein said armoring layer is formed as an elongated strip of a metal or alloy material (col. 6, lines 6-9) having a first side and an opposite, second side, and a width defined between a first side edge and a second side edge, wherein said width is sufficient to wrap around a cable core and overlap back onto itself when said armoring layer surrounds said cable core so as to form an overlapped portion (figs. 11, 12, and 14), wherein said armoring layer is corrugated (col. 3, lines 32-33) to have annular ridges and valleys extending between said first and second side edges.
Blazer further discloses the use of bonding agent or adhesive to attach the opposing lateral edges of the reinforcement layer together (col. 3, lines 43-47) but fails to teach at least one weld formed between said first side edge and said second side edge of said armoring layer at said approximate abutment, wherein said at least one weld is a series of welds which occur between said first side edge and said second side edge of said armoring layer.
Towery discloses a series of welds (46) formed between the side edges of the two portions (42 and 44) of armor layer (40; figs. 3 and 4; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the two edges of Blazer’s armor layer by a series of welds as taught by Towery since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, for coupling the armor layer’s side edges to improve coupling strength and resiliency [0021].
Re claims 4 and 12, Blazer/Towery discloses communication cable according to claims 1 and 9 but does not teach said series of welds occur only at ridges of corrugation of said first side edge which are in approximate abutment with ridges of corrugation of said second side edge of said armoring layer.
Towery discloses a series of welds (46) formed at a plurality of welding/coupling locations (e.g., recess 56/inward-facing ridges) between the edges of the two portions (42 and 44) of armor layer (40; figs. 3 and 4; [0028]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the two edges of Blazer’s armor layer by welds as taught by Towery to improve flexibility and reduce stress-induced cracking and breaking ([0021] and [0032]).
Re claims 5-6, 13-14, and 19, Blazer/Towery discloses the communication cable according to claims 4, 12, and the method thereof according to claim 18. Towery further discloses intermittent coupling [0032] but fails to teach said series of welds occur at all ridges or alternating ridges of corrugation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the weld at all ridges or alternating ridges of corrugation since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, coupling the armor layer’s edges for intended use, i.e., the desired level of flexibility.
Re claims 8 and 16, Blazer/Towery further discloses said metal or alloy material is steel (col. 6, line 9).
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer et al. (US 9594226 B2 – herein after Blazer) in view of Towery (WO 2022177866 A1– cited by Applicant) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Bahder et al. (US 3943271 A – cited by Applicant).
Re claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and 20, Blazer/Towery the communication cable according to claims 4, 12 and the method thereof according to claim 19. Blazer further discloses a tape (binder film 28 serves as a tape) adhered to said second side of said armoring layer proximate said first side edge (226; col. 7, lines 65-67), across said first side edge in approximate abutment with said second side edge (230), and adhered to said second side of said armoring layer proximate said second side edge (fig. 15; col. 13, lines 13-27).
Bahder et al. discloses a bridging tape (36) adhered to said second side of said armoring layer (30) proximate said first side edge, across said first side edge said first side edge in approximate abutment with said second side edge, and adhered to said second side of said armoring layer proximate said second side edge (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a tape to Blazer/Towery’s armor layer covering the seam where the two edges abut/overlap as taught by Bahder et al. to prevent the outer edge of the overlapped seam from indenting into the overlying protective jacket (col. 4, lines 8-16); thereby providing a better protection for the cable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Staschewski (DE 19926267 A1) discloses an optical cable comprises a helical corrugated pipe having a longitudinal weld.
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 Uyen-Chau N. Le whose telephone number is (571)272-2397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Kiesha R. Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
