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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 11-18, I in the reply filed on 13 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “to conduct a comprehensive search regarding any one of the groups, including the group provisionally elected above, it would be inherently necessary to review the same pertinent fields and classis of prior art relating to the other groups” and that “important questions of patentability and claim interpretation are likely to be based on substantially similar issues and evaluations for each group of claims, and would require consideration of the same prior art”. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s determination that it would be “inherently necessary” and “likely to be based on substantially similar issues” is applicant’s own opinion not supported by further evidence and/or citation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 July 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “Embodiments of the disclosure relate to” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0019]: 32 for each optical fiber 20 within the subunit [[20]] 10…. Configured to produce a subunit [[20]] 10 containing
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “acceptable range” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As claims 12-18 depend directly/indirectly on claim 11, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 11-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubin et al. (CN105398027) (of record) (machine translation) in view of Strong et al. (US8489219) (of record).
Regarding claim 11, Hubin discloses a system for controlling tension on a buffer tube produced on a processing line, the system comprising:
a compression caterpillar comprising a first drive belt (“upper pulley” (31)) and a second drive belt (“lower pully” (32)), the first drive belt and the second drive belt having a gap therebetween (Fig 1, 2);
wherein a gap is set to achieve a desired tension on the buffer tube ([0009]-[0010] via “pressure detector” and “spacing adjustment mechanism”);
wherein a measurement of the tension on the buffer tube as the buffer tube passes between the first drive belt and the second drive belt can be sent ([0009]-[0010]);
wherein the measurement of the tension on the buffer tube is within an acceptable range can be determined ([0009]-[0010]);
and a decrease in the gap between the first drive belt and the second drive belt in increments can be performed while the buffer tube passes between the drive belts until the tension is within the acceptable range ([0009]-[0010]); and
wherein upon determining that a threshold gap between the first drive belt and the second drive belt has been reached, an indication that the threshold gap has been reached can be outputted ([0009]-[0010] via “feedback”).
While Hubin does not explicitly that the measurements, adjustments and signaling are performed via a controller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Strong, which is in the buffer tube art, teaches that for a compression caterpillar system (“buffering-assist capstan” (60)) comprising of means of measuring, adjusting and signaling tension to the system, such a system can be controlled via a controller (“controller” (75), C4 L40-56, Fig 1) for the benefit of making fine adjustments to the system (C4 L54-56).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hubin teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, given that modified Hubin teaches the use of controller via Strong (“controller” (75)) capable of making adjustments to the system (C4 L40-56), which would include measuring a minimum gap (Hubin: [0009]-[0010]) and signaling the system to stop by adjusting the speed to zero (Hubin: C4 L50-54), modified Hubin teaches that the controller determines whether a minimum gap between the drive belts has been achieved and commands the processing line is stopped when the minimum gap is achieved such that the drive belts can be replaced.
Examiner notes the limitations regarding “the controller determines whether a minimum gap between the drive belts has been achieved and commands the processing line is stopped when the minimum gap is achieved such that the drive belts can be replaced”, are interpreted to be the intended use of the claimed apparatus and as the apparatus of modified Hubin is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim (See MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hubin teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Hubin teaches modifying the amount of pressure applied to the plasticized tube to avoid deformation ([0009]-[0010]), Strong teaches monitoring the tension of the capstan for controlling excess fiber length (C4 L15-60, C1 L26-31), and 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 (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the acceptable range is +/- 3% of the desired tension for the benefit of avoiding deformation and controlling excess fiber length.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hubin teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Strong teaches monitoring and modifying the buffering-assist capstan (60) during different portions of a run to accommodate changing process variables for the benefit of avoiding excess fiber length (C4 L7-26) and Hubin teaches that spacing between the drive belts represents a variable that can impact product deformation ([0009]-[0010]), modified Hubin teaches that the controller is capable of decreasing the gap at a first rate during a first portion of a run and decreasing the gap at a second rate during a remainder of the run, wherein the second rate is less than the first rate.
Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 16 are interpreted to be the intended use of the claimed apparatus and as the apparatus of modified Hubin is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim (See MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hubin teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. While Hubin does not explicitly disclose that the processing line further comprises a capstan that sets a line speed of the processing line and wherein the compression caterpillar is configured to push the buffer tube at a speed that is 1% to 10% greater than the line speed using the first drive belt and the second drive belt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Strong teaches the use of an additional capstan that sets a line speed of the processing line (“wet capstan” (70)) wherein the compression caterpillar (“buffering-assist capstan” (60)) is configured to push the buffer tube at a speed that is 1% to 2% greater than the line speed using the first drive belt and the second drive belt for the benefit of accommodating buffer-tube shrinkage (C3 L27-35, which is within the claimed range of 1% to 10% greater than).
Examiner notes the limitation regarding “the compression caterpillar is configured to push the buffer tube at a speed that is 1% to 10% greater than the line speed using the first drive belt and the second drive belt” is interpreted to be the intended use of the claimed apparatus and as the apparatus of modified Hubin is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim (See MPEP 2114).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubin et al. (CN105398027) (of record) (machine translation) and Strong et al. (US8489219) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11 and further in view of Sato et al. (JP2003157736) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hubin teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. While Hubin does not explicitly disclose that the compression caterpillar further comprises an air saddle having a first hood and a second hood, wherein the first drive belt and the second drive belt are disposed between the first hood and the second hood, and wherein the air saddle is configured to apply pressurized air to the first drive belt and the second drive belt through the first hood and the second hood, respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that
a) Sato, which is within the capstan art, teaches that a drive belt system (“capstan pulley” (3)) can comprise of an air saddle comprising of a hood (via “conveyor” (2) with “outlet holes” (8) and “purge blower” (12), Fig 1, 2) disposed to one side of the drive belt (Fig 1, 2) that applies pressurized air to the drive belt through the hood for the benefit of temperature control and reducing maintenance requirements ([0025]-[0026]);
b) it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)); and
c) one would have been motivated to duplicate the hood for first and second drive belt for the purpose of temperature control and reducing maintenance requirements for each drive belt.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hubin teaches all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. Additionally, as Sato teaches that the hood is spaced a distance from the drive belt (Fig 1, 2) and said distance can be the same between two sets of drive belts and hoods (Fig 2), modified Hubin teaches that the first hood is spaced a set distance from the first drive belt and the second hood is spaced the set distance from the second drive belt.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubin et al. (CN105398027) (of record) (machine translation) and Strong et al. (US8489219) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11 and further in view of Dombrowski et al. (US5440660).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hubin teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. While Hubin does not explicitly teach that the compression caterpillar further comprises an alignment guide comprising offset eyelets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Dombrowski, which is within the optical fiber cable making art, teaches that in conjunction with a compression system (“capstan drive” (61), multiple alignment guides in the form of eyelets offset from each other via placement at different points in a system (“foam blocks” (63), with C6 L45-50 teaching “guide eyelets” as an alternative to said foam blocks, Fig 2) for the benefit of eliminate vibration of the product being worked upon (C6 L45-50).
Examiner notes that the limitation of “wherein the alignment guide is configured to limit lateral drift of the buffer tube between the drive belts of the compression caterpillar” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the eyelets that differentiate them from those taught in Dombrowski, as the eyelets taught in Dombrowski are capable of limiting lateral drift.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hager et al. (US20030082380) teaches the use of guide eyelets (45) as part of an optical cable manufacturing apparatus (Fig 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights