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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on October 04, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Five (5) sheets of drawings were filed on October 04, 2024 and have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Inventorship
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitz et al. (US 6137936 A), hereafter Fitz, in view of Jenkins et al. (US 4743085 A), hereafter Jenkins.
Regarding claim 1; Fitz teaches (see Figures 1-3) an optical fiber cable (10; title, abstract, Paragraph [4]) comprising: a cable core (12; Paragraph [5]) including a plurality of optical fibers (18; Paragraph [7]); a tensile strength member (44; Paragraph [26]) disposed along the cable core (12; Paragraph [26]); and a sheath (jacket 40; Paragraph [26]) covering the cable core (12) and enclosing the tensile strength member (44; Paragraph [26]), and in a cross-sectional view (see Figure 3) of the optical fiber cable (10), a line segment (the line along the y axis connecting P1 and P2) intersects an outer periphery of the tensile strength member (44), the line segment connecting a center of the tensile strength member (Osm) and a center of the optical fiber cable (O’; Paragraph [41]).
Fitz does not teach wherein the tensile strength member (44) includes an exposed portion exposed from the sheath (40) to an inside of the cable core (12). However, in the same field of endeavor, Jenkins teaches (see Figure 6 and Paragraph [14]) an optical fiber cable with a core (tubular member 28), tensile strength member (64), and sheath (inner jacket 61; Paragraph [14]). It can be seen in Figure 6 that tensile strength member (64) includes an exposed portion exposed from the sheath (61) to an inside of the cable core (28; “Portions of the strength members are in intimate contact with bedding layers 65-65 to render predetermined surfaces of the strength members sufficiently inaccessible for coupling with the plastic extrudate which is used to provide the overlying jacket” Paragraph [14]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to expose the tensile strength member to the core in the optical cable taught by Fitz using the teaching by Jenkins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Jenkins teaches that “This reduces jacket-strength member coupling so that the strength members can more readily slide with respect to the jacket plastic during local cable bending” (Paragraph [14]).
Regarding claim 2; Fitz/Jenkins teaches the optical fiber according to claim 1 as applied above, but fail to disclose that a width of the exposed portion is in a range of 1.5% to 6% of an outer periphery of the cable core. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the width of the exposed portion to any value that provides a desired level of structural integrity including a range of 1.5% to 6% of the outer periphery of the cable core, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 3; Fitz/Jenkins teaches the optical fiber cable according to claim 1. Fitz further teaches (see Figure 2) wherein in the cross-sectional view of the optical fiber cable (10), the tensile strength member (44) is provided at one position (Fitz teaches a single strength member so it is provided at only one position; Paragraph [28]).
Regarding claim 4; Fitz/Jenkins teaches the optical fiber cable according to claim 3. Fitz further teaches (see Figure 3) wherein a center of the cable core (O) is located on an opposite side of the tensile strength member (44) with respect to the center of the optical fiber cable (O’; Paragraph [41]).
Regarding claim 5; Fitz/Jenkins teaches the optical fiber cable according to claim 1. Fitz further teaches wherein the tensile strength member (44) is made of fiber-reinforced plastic (fiber reinforced polymer; Paragraph [27]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McNutt (US 11454775 B1) see Figure 1A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER L KAULFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 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.
/P.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2874 /MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights