DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/1/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 16-36 are cancelled. Claims 1-15 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/1/2026.
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) 1-2, 5-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (U.S. 11,048,054), hereinafter SHIMIZU.
Regarding claim 1, SHIMIZU teaches: A method of manufacturing an optical fiber ribbon in a rolled configuration (SHIMIZU teaches a method of manufacturing an optical fiber ribbon in a rolled configuration [Abstract; Figs. 4, 6A].), the method comprising: rolling the optical fiber ribbon as a plurality of fibers are sequentially added to the optical fiber ribbon (SHIMIZU teaches a plurality of fibers are sequentially added to the optical fiber ribbon 10(1) [Figs. 4, 5A-5B, 6A-6B; Col. 8, lines 21-34; Col. 7, lines 1-7].); and progressively applying bonding material as the optical fibers are sequentially added to the optical fiber ribbon (SHIMIZU teaches progressively applying resin onto the optical fiber cable [Col. 8, lines 5-14; Fig. 4].).
Regarding claim 2, SHIMIZU teaches: wherein progressively applying bonding material comprises applying bonding material to bond together adjacent ones of the plurality of optical fibers as the optical fiber ribbon is being rolled into a spiral configuration (SHIMIZU applying a plastic tape member (2) to bond together adjacent one of the plurality of optical fibers as it is being rolled [Col. 15, lines 57-63; Col. 16, lines 5-13; Figs. 4, 10-11].).
Regarding claim 5, SHIMIZU teaches: wherein the optical fibers extend straight along a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber ribbon when the optical fiber ribbon is rolled into the spiral configuration (SHIMIZU teaches the optical fibers extend straight along a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber ribbon when rolled [Figs. 4, 5A-5B, 6A-6B; Col. 7, lines 21-35].).
Regarding claim 6, SHIMIZU teaches: wherein the optical fibers wrap helically about a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber ribbon when the optical fiber ribbon is rolled into the spiral configuration (SHIMIZU teaches the optical fibers wrap helically about a longitudinal axis of the optical fiber ribbon when it is rolled into the spiral configuration [Figs. 4, 5A-5B, 6A-6B; Col. 7, lines 21-35].).
Regarding claim 7, SHIMIZU teaches: further comprising spooling the optical fiber ribbon on a take-up spool while the optical fiber ribbon is disposed in the spiral configuration (SHIMIZU teaches spooling the optical fiber ribbon on take-up spool while in the spiral configuration [Figs. 4, 10].).
Regarding claim 8, SHIMIZU teaches: wherein applying bonding material comprises: a) indexing bonded ones of the optical fibers until a fiber to be added to the optical fiber ribbon is aligned with a fiber most recently added to the optical fiber ribbon (SHIMIZU teaches indexing bonded ones of the fibers to be added to the ribbon [Figs. 6A-6B].); b) bonding the fiber to be added to the optical fiber ribbon to the fiber most recently added to the optical fiber ribbon (SHIMIZU teaches bonding the fibers together through the extruder [Figs. 4, 10; Col. 9, lines 5-49; Col. 8, LINES 1-14].); and c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until the optical fiber ribbon is formed (SHIMIZU teaches repeating steps [Figs. 4, 10; Col. 7, lines 52-57].).
Regarding claim 9, SHIMIZU teaches: further comprising twisting the optical fiber ribbon in a first direction, either clockwise or counterclockwise, so as to create a helically twisted rollable rolled ribbon (SHIMIZU teaches twisting the optical fiber in a first direction, either clockwise or counterclockwise, to create a helically twisted rollable ribbon [Figs. 4. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, 10].).
Regarding claim 10, SHIMIZU teaches: further comprising: stranding the helically twisted rollable ribbon and an additional communication element in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction to form a core strand (SHIMIZU teaches stranding the twisted rollable ribbon and an additional communication element in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction [Figs. 6A-6B; Col. 9, lines 5-61].).
Regarding claim 15, SHIMIZU teaches: further comprising attaching a color-coded identification element to the rolled optical fiber ribbon (SHIMIZU teaches attaching a color-coded layer on the outer periphery of the optical fiber [Col. 15, lines 49-56].).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 11,048,054), hereinafter SHIMIZU, in view of Takeuchi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0355882), hereinafter TAKEUCHI.
Regarding claim 3, SHIMIZU teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein applying bonding material comprises applying the bonding material in continuous beads between adjacent fibers. In the same field of endeavor, optical fibers, TAKEUCHI teaches applying bonding material in continuous beads between adjacent fibers [Figs. 10A-10B; 0033-0034; 0037-0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SHIMIZU, by having the bonding material applied in continuous beads, as suggested by TAKEUCHI, in order to couple adjacent optical fibers [0039].
Regarding claim 4, SHIMIZU teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein applying bonding material comprises applying the bonding material in intermittent volumes between adjacent fibers. In the same field of endeavor, optical fibers, TAKEUCHI teaches applying the bonding material in intermittent volumes [Figs. 10A-10B; 0037-0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SHIMIZU, by having the bonding material applied in intermittent volumes, as suggested by TAKEUCHI, in order to couple adjacent optical fibers [0039].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 11,048,054), hereinafter SHIMIZU, in view of Blazer et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0389537), hereinafter BLAZER.
Regarding claim 12, SHIMIZU teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the additional communication element includes a dielectric filler rod. In the same field of endeavor, optical fibers, BLAZER teaches an additional element of a dielectric filler rod (44) [0049]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SHIMIZU, by having a dielectric filler rod, as suggested by BLAZER, in order for improved mechanical performance [0049].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 11,048,054), hereinafter SHIMIZU, in view of Parke (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0271046), hereinafter PARKE.
Regarding claim 13, SHIMIZU teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the additional communication element includes an electrical conductor. In the same field of endeavor, optical fibers, PARKE teaches an additional element of an electrical conductor [Fig. 3; 0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SHIMIZU, by having an additional element of an electrical conductor, as suggested by PARKE, in order to have other power and/or communication mediums [0043].
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 11,048,054), hereinafter SHIMIZU, in view of Ito et al. (U.S. 10,114,186), hereinafter ITO.
Regarding claim 11, SHIMIZU teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the helically twisted rollable ribbon includes a first helically twisted rollable ribbon; and wherein the additional communication element includes a second helically twisted rollable ribbon. In the same field of endeavor, optical fibers, ITO teaches a first helically twisted rollable ribbon (42a) and a second helically twisted ribbon (41a) [Fig. 4A; Col. 7, lines 7-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SHIMIZU, by having two helically twisted ribbons, as suggested by ITO, in order to prevent the optical fiber cable from being deformed [Col. 8, lines 7-10].
Regarding claim 14, SHIMIZU teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: further comprising: selecting a lay length of the core strand in the second direction to mostly remove a twist from the optical fiber ribbon in the first direction. In the same field of endeavor, optical fibers, ITO teaches a force to remove twisting in an untwisting direction occurs [Col. 2, lines 1-3; Col. 3, lines 36-44]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SHIMIZU, by having a second direction to remove a twist, as suggested by ITO, in order to prevent an optical fiber cable from being deformed [Col. 3, lines 45-47].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights