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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toge et al (US 8,548,294 B2). Toge teaches:
1. An optical fiber tape core wire (Fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of single-core coated optical fibers (11) that are intermittently connected to or separated from each other in a longitudinal direction and a width direction of the optical fiber tape core while the plurality of single-core coated optical fibers are connected to each other in units of one or two cores (see Fig. 2), wherein when
a is defined as a thickness of a cross-section of a joining portion,
b is defined as an outer diameter of a cross-section of the joining portion,
A is defined as a length of the joining portion in the longitudinal direction, and
B is defined as a length of a separation portion in the longitudinal direction, the optical fiber tape core wire satisfies conditional expressions (1) and (2) below:
10mm < a/b*A < 35mm
a corresponds to b, b corresponds to d and A corresponds to B in Toge
Toge teaches b/d can be 0.1 to 0.9 (Fig. 9) depending on variables d and h (C15 L65 – C16 L15)
B is 80 mm (C8 L66 – C9 L14).
Given the range of values a/b*A can be 8 mm to 72 mm (80*0.1 to 80*0.9)
40 mm < B < 125 mm
B corresponds to A – B in Toge (see Fig. 2), and A – B = 200 mm – 80 mm = 120 mm (C8 L66 – C9 L14).
The ranges are to exactly the same but, in the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
2. ranges are now:
(1) 10mm < a/b*A < 31mm
(2) 40 mm < B < 100 mm
As discussed, Toge teaches a wide range of a/b*A that overlaps with the claimed range. Toge teaches a B of 120 mm, but Toge teaches the values of A and B being “about” 200 mm and “about” 80 mm (C8 L66 – C9 L14).
Given the values of A and B are “about” the disclosed values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try close values (such as B being 190mm – 90 mm = 100 mm), since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Both values are only 10 mm from the “about” values taught therefore a person of ordinary skill the art would find these values predictable and would expect these values to succeed in Toge given the fact that the values of all the variable concerning the sizes disclosed are changeable depending on values of the rest of the variables.
3. A slotless optical cable (Fig. 1) comprising:
the optical fiber tape core wire (11) according claim 1,
a press winding (93) that fixes a plurality of the optical fiber tape core wires (11),
an outer cover (94) that covers the press winding (93),
a tension member (95) installed in the outer cover (94), and
a rip cord (97) for tearing the outer cover (94), the rip cord (97) being installed in the outer cover (94).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach optical fiber tape core wires with various dimension for the intermittent bonding lengths and bonding thickness: US 2003/0118301, US 9995896, US 2020/0064550, US 10882783, US 2021/0053338, US 2021/0116659, US 11360281, US 2022/0252809, US 11415769, US 11536922, US 11828996, US 11860438, US 11886026, US 11927803, US 12353041.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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 571-270-1739. 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
