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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 and 04/13/2015 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod (US 5,218,658 Hereinafter Macleod) in view of Yang et al. (US 5,761,362 Hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Macleod teaches an optical fiber cable comprising:
an outer jacket (8, Figs. 1 and 1A) comprising a first inner surface defining a first central bore and a first outer surface (col. 3, lines 17-25);
an inner jacket (6, Figs. 1 and 1A) disposed in the first central bore, the inner jacket comprising a second inner surface defining a second central bore and a second outer surface (col. 3, lines 5-8);
an armor layer (7, 7A, and 7B, Figs. 1 and 1A) disposed between the first inner surface and the second outer surface, the armor layer being formed from a first strip wrapped into a tubular structure around the inner jacket (col. 3, lines 9-16);
a plurality of optical fibers (1B, Figs. 1 and 1A) disposed in the second central bore (col. 2, lines 48-60); and
a tensile strength of at least 50 kN (col. 3, lines 39-42).
Mild steel of tape 7 is treated as having a thermal conductivity of at least 10 W/mK as a material-property inference, not a quoted number.
Macleod fails to teach a layer of strengthening yarns disposed between the second outer surface of the inner jacket and the armor layer.
Yang teaches a layer of strengthening yarns (16, Fig. 1) disposed between an inner polymer tube (12, Fig. 1) and surrounding steel armor (18, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 13-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included a strengthening-yarn layer under armor to the cable of Macleod as taught by Yang, in order to add tensile load-sharing and radial protection. Interposing yarn at Macleod's original bonded interface between layer 6 and tape 7 is a soft spot and is left visible. Macleod's wires 4 are not treated as yarn.
Regarding claim 2, Macleod further teaches wherein the first strip comprises metal (7, Figs. 1 and 1A, col. 3, lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 3, Macleod further teaches wherein the first strip comprises steel (7, Figs. 1 and 1A, col. 3, lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 4, Yang further teaches wherein the strengthening yarns comprise aramid or fiberglass (16, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 5, Macleod further teaches a second tubular protective metallic layer (5, Figs. 1 and 1A) in the second central bore, formed from a second strip wrapped into a tubular structure around the plurality of optical fibers (col. 3, lines 1-8). Copper is treated as having a thermal conductivity of at least 10 W/mK as a material-property inference.
Regarding claim 7, Macleod further teaches the plurality of optical fibers arranged in one or more buffer tubes (2, Figs. 1 and 1A, col. 2, lines 48-60) and wherein, when the cable is contacted with a steel block 150 mm by 150 mm by 10 mm at 700 C for 60 seconds, none of the buffer tubes melts: that is a metal-tube no-melting theory from the steel remaining solid at 700 C, not a statement that Macleod performed the test, and not a claim that a fire-rated polymer cable necessarily passes.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Yang and further in view of Oestreich (US 4,076,382 Hereinafter Oestreich).
Regarding claim 6, Macleod in view of Yang fails to teach a second layer of strengthening yarns in the second central bore between the second armor layer and the plurality of optical fibers.
Oestreich teaches an inner aromatic-polyamide serving (5) inside an inner polymer sheath (6, col. 1, lines 57-65 and col. 2, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included an inner yarn serving to the cable of Macleod as taught by Oestreich, in order to add tensile protection and cushioning at the inner core. The yarn is not moved outside the second tubular layer and called inside.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Yang and further in view of Blazer et al. (US 2020/0142144 A1 Hereinafter Blazer).
Regarding claim 8, Macleod fails to expressly teach an outer-jacket thickness of 1 mm to 3 mm as measured between the first outer surface and the first inner surface.
Blazer teaches a jacket (12) wall thickness of 1.0-4.0 mm, with an approximately 2.5 mm example (paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included a 2.5 mm outer jacket wall to the cable of Macleod as taught by Blazer, in order to balance kink resistance and handling flexibility. The 33 mm complete cable example is not imported.
Regarding claim 9, Macleod's textual 11 mm OD of layer 6 around an approximately 8 mm OD tube 5 yields approximately 1.5 mm radial inner-jacket thickness (col. 3, lines 5-8), within 0.5 mm to 2 mm and less than the selected 2.5 mm outer wall. That uses textual diameters, not a schematic measurement.
Regarding claim 10, Macleod teaches a cable just under 16 mm (col. 3, lines 39-42). Accommodating the added yarn and selected 2.5 mm outer wall with an overall diameter in 15 mm to 30 mm is a proposed design selection, not a verbatim tested assembly. Blazer's 33 mm complete example is not cited as inside the claimed interval.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod (US 5,218,658 Hereinafter Macleod) in view of Andreassen (US 5,329,606 Hereinafter Andreassen).
Regarding claim 11, Macleod teaches an optical fiber cable comprising:
a first polymeric jacket (6, Figs. 1 and 1A) having a first thickness (col. 3, lines 5-8; approximately 1.5 mm from the textual 11 mm OD around an approximately 8 mm OD tube 5);
an armor layer (7, Figs. 1 and 1A) forming a continuous layer around the first polymeric jacket (col. 3, lines 9-16);
a second polymeric jacket (8, Figs. 1 and 1A) disposed around the armor layer as an outermost layer (col. 3, lines 17-25); and
a tensile strength of at least 50 kN (col. 3, lines 39-42).
The outer sheath from just under 16 mm OD around the approximately 11 mm layer 6 supplies a second thickness greater than the first thickness (col. 3, lines 5-8 and 39-42).
Macleod fails to teach a plurality of buffer tubes each containing at least one optical fiber, and fails to teach that when contacted with a steel block 150 mm by 150 mm by 10 mm at 700 C for 60 seconds, none of the buffer tubes melts.
Andreassen teaches a plurality of buffer tubes each containing at least one optical fiber (4 and 5 containing fibers 2 and 3, Figs. 1-2, col. 2, lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included plural steel fiber tubes to the cable of Macleod as taught by Andreassen, in order to protect and separate fiber groups in rugged service. None of the buffer tubes melts under the recited hot-block contact is a metal-tube no-melting theory from steel remaining solid at 700 C, not a fire-rated polymer-cable result, and not a statement that either patent performed that test.
Regarding claim 12, Macleod in view of Andreassen teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 11 as set forth above.
Andreassen further teaches wherein the plurality of buffer tubes is stranded around a central strength member (4 and 5 around 6, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 48-55 and col. 2, lines 25-35).
Claim(s) 13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Andreassen and further in view of Hennink et al. (US 2014/0112630 A1 Hereinafter Hennink).
Regarding claim 13, Macleod in view of Andreassen fails to teach a first layer of buffer tubes contacting the central strength member and a second layer of buffer tubes disposed between the first layer and the first polymeric jacket.
Hennink teaches two concentric layers of buffer tubes (inner tubes 6 and outer tubes 3 around central member 9, Fig. 1, paragraph 0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included two-layer tube packing to the steel tubes of Andreassen as taught by Hennink, in order to increase fiber capacity. Seating the inner layer in contact with the central member, omitting optional intervening yarns where they would prevent contact, is an identified modification. Hennink is not asserted to picture steel tubes.
Regarding claim 18, Macleod further teaches wrapped mild-steel tape (7, Figs. 1 and 1A) supplies the armor formed from a strip comprising a material having a thermal conductivity of at least 10 W/mK as a mild-steel inference, not a quoted number (col. 3, lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 19, Macleod in view of Andreassen fails to teach a tensile strength of at least 100 kN. Increasing load-bearing metal area or adding a strength layer analogous to Andreassen layer 17 (Fig. 2, col. 1, lines 48-55), selecting the system for 100 kN rather than the disclosed 50 kN baseline, is a proposed sizing. Andreassen's 100 kN/m is crush resistance per unit length, not 100 kN cable tensile strength (col. 1, lines 48-54). No selected reference reports this combined cable at 100 kN. That numerical gap is left visible.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Andreassen and Hennink and further in view of McNutt et al. (US 2005/0041940 A1 Hereinafter McNutt).
Regarding claim 14, Macleod in view of Andreassen and Hennink fails to teach that each buffer tube comprises an inner layer of polycarbonate and an outer layer of polybutylene terephthalate.
McNutt teaches a layer of PBT disposed on a layer of polycarbonate as conventional buffer-tube technology (paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included PC/PBT dual-layer tubes to the cable of Macleod as taught by McNutt, in order to obtain crush resistance and thermal stability. Replacing steel tubes with PC/PBT removes the metal no-melting shortcut. Inherited no-melting of the polymer tubes under the claim-11 hot-block contact is not proven and is left visible.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Andreassen and further in view of Yang et al. (US 5,761,362 Hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 15, Macleod in view of Andreassen fails to teach a first layer of strengthening yarns disposed between the first polymeric jacket and the armor layer.
Yang teaches yarns (16, Fig. 1) between the inner polymer tube (12, Fig. 1) and steel armor (18, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 13-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included a yarn layer under armor to the cable of Macleod as taught by Yang, in order to add tensile load-sharing and radial protection.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Andreassen and Yang and further in view of Oestreich (US 4,076,382 Hereinafter Oestreich).
Regarding claim 16, Macleod in view of Andreassen and Yang fails to teach a second layer of strengthening yarns disposed between the first polymeric jacket and the plurality of buffer tubes.
Oestreich teaches aromatic-polyamide servings (5 and 7) on both sides of an inner polymer sheath (6, col. 1, lines 57-65 and col. 2, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included yarn placements on both sides of the inner jacket to the cable of Macleod as taught by Oestreich, in order to provide tensile reinforcement and cushioning. Steel tubes of route 11 are retained.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Andreassen, Yang, Oestreich and further in view of Graham et al. (US 6,068,796 Hereinafter Graham).
Regarding claim 17, Macleod in view of Andreassen, Yang, and Oestreich fails to teach that each yarn layer comprises a thickness of 0.1 to 0.5 mm.
Graham teaches a yarn layer (7) of 0.22-0.52 mm radial thickness, with 0.22 mm examples (col. 5, lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included a 0.22 mm thickness for each yarn layer of the cable of Macleod as taught by Graham, in order to provide compact reinforcement while retaining the principal metal tensile members. Each layer is selected separately; total two-layer thickness is not substituted for the thickness of each layer.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macleod in view of Andreassen and further in view of Ma et al. (US 6,496,629 B2 Hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 20, Macleod in view of Andreassen fails to teach that each buffer tube comprises a polymer having a melting temperature of at least 125 C.
Ma teaches PBT as a buffer-tube polymer with a melting point of approximately 220 C (col. 4, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included PBT buffer tubes to the cable of Macleod as taught by Ma, in order to retain tube strength and chemical compatibility. A melting point of 220 C supports the recited 125 C floor. The exact 700 C hot-block no-melting result for those polymer tubes is not proven and is left visible. 220 C is not treated as exceeding 700 C.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sirin et al. (US 10,996,413 B2) teaches a fire-resistant high-fiber-count cable with PBT buffer tubes, mica/glass protection, and corrugated steel-tape armor; functioning fibers after flame exposure are not substituted for unmelted tubes under the recited hot-block contact. Sirin et al. (US 10,983,296 B2) and Baetz et al. (US 10,534,149 B2) teaches several of the required limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571)272-7044. 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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights