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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the claims on 4/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2022/0353478, Alakarhu in view of U.S. Patent Application 2007/0222686, Carscallen et al. (hereinafter Carscallen).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Alakarhu discloses A connecting cable for a recording device, the connecting cable configured to transmit electrical power and data between a primary recording device and an auxiliary recording device (Figs. 1-4; [0088], “electronic communication between detachable body A250 and main housing body A210 may be provided via a wired tether A270. Wired tether A270 may extend from detachable body A250 to main housing body A210. Wired tether A270 may be configured to enable the transmission of data to and from the detachable body A250 and main housing body A210. Wired tether A270 may also be configured to enable the transmission of power from main housing body A210 to the detachable body A250.”), the connecting cable comprising:
a first connecting end opposite a second connecting end (Fig. 4; [0088], “Wired tether A270 may extend from detachable body A250 to main housing body A210”);
a coiled portion defined between the first connecting end and the second connecting end, wherein the coiled portion is configured to translate from a first compressed position to a second
elongated position ([0090], “In various embodiments, wired tether A270 may be stored in a winding in main housing body A210. The winding may be configured to at least partially reduce a volume of an interior of main housing body A210 that wired tether A270 consumes.” [0091], “main housing body A210 may comprise a retractable winding mechanism configured to wind wired tether A270 into a winding. The retractable winding mechanism may be configured to retract wired tether A270 into (or around) the retractable winding mechanism in response to detachable body A25 being coupled to dock A215. The retractable winding mechanism may be configured to deploy (or enable deployment of) wired tether A270 in response to detachable body A25 being detached and extended away from dock A215.”).
However, Alakarhu does not explicitly disclose an optical fiber channel extending from the first connecting end to the second connecting end; and
a coiled portion… configured to translate from a first compressed position to a second elongated position
Carscallen teaches an optical fiber channel extending from the first connecting end to the second connecting end ([0060], “transportation cable 705 that is a component of a snag-free coiled cable assembly in accordance with the invention. In this exemplary embodiment, transportation cable 705 is an optical cable suitable for carrying optical signals. Transportation cable 705 contains an optical fiber 730 surrounded by one or more external jackets such as jacket 735 and jacket 710.” Further discloses this optical fiber cable terminated at two opposite connecting ends, which is the “extending from the first connecting end to the second connecting end” structure of claim 1; [0061] “FIG. 8 shows a snag-free coiled cable assembly 800 incorporating transportation cable 705 shown in FIG. 7. A first optical connector 870 is assembled on one end of transportation cable 705 with a second optical connector 865 assembled on the other end.”); and
a coiled portion… configured to translate from a first compressed position to a second elongated position (Carscallen’s hose 450-which houses the transportation cable (including the optical-fiber version, transportation cable 705, [0061] and Fig. 8) is structurally pre-coiled and elongates under tension. [0040], “cable assembly 400 that uses a hose 450 preformed to default to a coiled shape when no pressure is applied to elongate hose 450.” [0028], “cable assembly 100 is formed of a self-retracting hose that is preformed to default to a coiled shape when no pressure is applied to elongate the self-retracting hose.” [0029], “The coils of cable assembly 100 elongate to accommodate movement of carriage 115. For example, when carriage 115 is raised to its highest position, as shown in FIG. 1, cable assembly 100 elongates to such an extent that cable assembly 100 resembles a straight cable without coils.”)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Alakarhu’s power/data tether (A27) to use Carscallen’s optically-conductive, self coiling hose structure because both references solve the identical problem- managing cable slack between two relatively-moving components- Carscallen’s structure is simply a known, off-the shelf alternative for achieving what Alakarhu’s own retractable winding mechanism already does. Hence, making the substitution a predictable application of a known technique.
3. Regarding Claim 2, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen discloses The connecting cable of claim 1,
Carscallen discloses wherein the coiled portion in the first compressed position comprises a first length, wherein the coiled portion in the second elongated position comprises a second length, and wherein the second length is greater than the first length ([0029], “The coils of cable assembly 100 elongate to accommodate movement of carriage 115. For example, when carriage 115 is raised to its highest position, as shown in FIG. 1, cable assembly 100 elongates to such an extent that cable assembly 100 resembles a straight cable without coils.” [0031], “When carriage 115 is in this position, cable assembly 100 defaults to its quiescent state, wherein cable assembly 100 occupies minimal length along its longitudinal axis, and consequently, has minimal cable droop.” A first (minimal) length in the coiled/quiescent/compressed state [0031] and a second (greater) length in the elongated state where the cable “resemebles a straight cable without coils”).
4. Regarding Claim 3, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen discloses The connecting cable of claim 1,
However, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen does not explicitly discloses wherein the coiled portion is wound in a clockwise direction.
Official Notice: routine design choice rationale-i.e. selecting a clockwise winding direction for a coiled cable is one of only two routine, equally-obvious manufacturing options (clockwise or counterclockwise) with no claimed criticality or unexpected result, which an examiner can support with a single sentence rather than a prior-art citation, but this requires either evidence in the spec that direction is non-functional or a “common sense”/secondary reference sowing winding direction is a known design variable in the art.
5. Regarding Claim 4, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen discloses The connecting cable of claim 1,
Carscallen discloses further comprising an outer elongated core surrounding the optical fiber channel ([0065], “FIG. 10 shows a snag-free coiled cable assembly 900 that includes a hose 450 in which is housed a transportation cable 705 having optical connectors attached at either ends. Transportation cable 705 is used to provide transport of optical signals between two components mounted on a lift truck. Also housed in hose 450 is transportation cable 940, which is used to transport a power supply voltage between two components of the lift truck.” [0067], “The two transportation cables, as well as any additional cables that may be included, are loosely housed in hose 405. The loose housing is attributed in part, to an airgap that exists between the external surfaces of each of the transportation cables and the internal surface of hose 450.” Hose 450 is the outer elongated core/housing, and the optical transportation cable 705 is disposed inside it-i.e., hose 450 “surrounds” the optical fiber channel (cable 705)).
6. Claim 11 recites a recording system with substantially the same structural limitations as claim 1, reframed as a system comprising a primary recording device and an auxiliary recording device, and the connecting cable of claim 1.
Alakarhu discloses the primary recording device (recording device A100; [0057], Figs. 1-2, 4) and the auxiliary recording device (auxiliary recording device A160; [0057], Figs. 1-2, 4), connected by the wired tether A270 configured to transmit power and data ([0056], Figs. 1-2, 4). For the same reason given for claim 1.
11. (Currently Amended) A recording system comprising:
a primary recording device;
an auxiliary recording device; and
a connecting cable configured to transmit electrical power and data between the primary
recording device and the auxiliary recording device, wherein the connecting cable comprises:
a first connecting end opposite a second connecting end;
an optical fiber channel extending from the first connecting end to the second connecting end; and
a coiled portion defined between the first connecting end and the second connecting end, wherein the coiled portion is configured to translate from a first compressed position to a second elongated position.
7. Claim 21 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 2.
21. (New) The recording system of claim 11, wherein the coiled portion in the first compressed position comprises a first length, wherein the coiled portion in the second elongated position comprises a second length, and wherein the second length is greater than the first length.
8. Claim 22 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 3.
22. (New) The recording system of claim 11, wherein the coiled portion is wound in a clockwise direction.
9. Claim 23 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 4.
23. (New) The recording system of claim 11, wherein the connecting cable further comprises an outer elongated core surrounding the optical fiber channel.
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.
10. Claim(s) 5-7, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alakarhu in view of Carscallen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 3823253 Walters et al. (hereinafter Walters).
11. Regarding Claim 5, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen discloses The connecting cable of claim 4,
However, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen does not explicitly discloses wherein the coiled portion is wound in a first direction, and wherein the outer elongated core is wound in a second direction.
Further, Walters teaches wherein the coiled portion is wound in a first direction, and wherein the outer elongated core is wound in a second direction. (Claim 1, “a plurality of elongated first electrical, flexible conductors generally helically wrapped around and along said core in a first direction, a plurality of elongated second electrical conductors generally helically wrapped along and disposed circumferentially outward of the outer surface of said first conductor… said second electrical conductors being helically wrapped in a direction opposite to the helical winding of said first conductors”).
A skilled artisan would wind the coiled portion and outer core in opposite directions because Walters teaches this is the known solution to prevent layers from interlocking or kinking as a coiled cable repeatedly stretches and retracts. Applying this established winding technique to Alakarhu/Carscallen cable is a predictable, routine design choice, not an inventive leap.
12. Regarding Claim 6, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen further in view of Walters discloses The connecting cable of claim 5,
Walters discloses wherein the first direction is different from the second direction (Col. 3 lines16-22, “The inner set of electrical conductors 13 are wrapped helically around the central core 17 …with a given lay, which is a counterclockwise lay…” Col. 3 lines35-37, “The preferred outer conductors 15 are identical in size and number to that of the inner conductors 13 but wrapped with the opposite hand helix, viz. clockwise.” “Opposite hand helix” is, by definition a different direction from the inner layers’s lay. See Claim 1, “said second electrical conductors being helically wrapped in a direction opposite to the helical winding of said first conductors.” Col. 4 lines 41-44, “As the conductors 13 and 15 are wound in opposite directions, forces tending to kink them during return from a stretched to a relaxed condition are more balanced”).
13. Regarding Claim 7, Walters discloses The connecting cable of claim 5, wherein the first direction comprises a clockwise direction, and wherein the second direction comprises a counterclockwise direction ((Col. 3 lines16-22, “The inner set of electrical conductors 13 are wrapped helically around the central core 17 …with a given lay, which is a counterclockwise lay as viewed from the left, exposed end of the cable 11…” Col. 3 lines 35-37, “The preferred outer conductors 15 are identical in size and number to that of the inner conductors 13 but wrapped with the opposite hand helix, viz. clockwise as viewed from the left exposed end.”).
14. Claim 24 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 5.
15. Claim 25 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 6.
16. Claim 26 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 7.
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.
17. Claim(s) 8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alakarhu in view of Carscallen as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 3823253 Walters et al. (hereinafter Walters).
18. Regarding Claim 8, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen The connecting cable of claim 1,
Alakarhu in view of Carscallen does not explicitly discloses further comprising:
an outer layer; and
an outer elongated core disposed radially inward from the outer layer, and wherein the optical fiber channel is disposed radially inward from the outer elongated core.
Further, Wessels teaches an outer layer ([0022], “buffer tubes 12 include an inner layer 25 formed of a first polymeric material.” Claim 1, “a radially outward second layer formed into an elongate cylinder that circumferentially overlies the radially inner layer, the second layer being formed of a second polymeric material that differs from the first material.”); and
an outer elongated core disposed radially inward from the outer layer (Claim 1, “a radially inward first layer formed into an elongate cylinder, the first layer being formed of a first polymeric material.” [0022], the inner layer 25 is described as formed “into an elongate cylinder” and is the layer the outer layer 26 “circumferentially overlies”), and wherein the optical fiber channel is disposed radially inward from the outer elongated core ([0002]-[0003], “the optical fiber or fibers are typically enclosed in a plastic buffer tube having a bore of a cross-sectional area larger than the cross-sectional area of the fiber or fibers within it. This is referred to as a "loose" configuration.” [0021], “the water-blocking gel 19 can… reduce the degree of movement of optical fibers 14 within the buffer tube lumen.” [0029], “the buffer tubes 12 are formed by extruding the inner layer 25 over the optical fibers 14… then extruding the outer layer 26 over the inner layer 25.” Optical fiber 14 sits in the lumen/bore radially inward of inner layer 25, which is itself radially inward of outer layer 26.).
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify the Alakarhu/Carscallen connecting cable to incorporate Wessels’ dual-layer buffer tube construction because Wessels teaches that combining an inner layer selected for crush resistance and low thermal expansion with an outer layer selected for flexibility ([0007], “can compensate for some of the shortcomings of materials when used alone”), providing a cable that is both crush-resistant and easier to handle ([0023],[0025]). Since Alakarhu/Carscallen’s optical fiber channel is subject to repeated flexing and coiling, applying Wessel’ known buffer tube structure to it is the predictable application of known technique to protect a known type of component.
19. Claim 27 is a system claim, objected with respect to the same limitation objected in device claim 8.
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.
20. Claim(s) 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alakarhu in view of Carscallen further in view of Wessels as applied to claim 8 and 27 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9788469 Gimblet et al. (hereinafter Gimblet).
21. Regarding Claim 9, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen further in view of Wessels discloses The connecting cable of claim 8,
However, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen further in view of Wessels does not explicitly disclose wherein the outer elongated core comprises a plurality of power channels and a plurality of data channels.
Gimblet teaches wherein the outer elongated core comprises a plurality of power channels and a plurality of data channels (Col. 8 lines 21-23, “cable 60 includes an optical fiber unit 66 that includes four optical fibers 18 located within a buffer tube 68.” This is the optical fiber channel, analogous to applicant’s optical fiber channel that the outer elongated core must radially surround. Data Channels: Col. 8 lines 23-27, “Cable 60 includes a 32 AWG wire 70 that may function as a configuration channel.” And “a twisted pair of 28 AWG wires 72 that provides USB 2.0 backward compatibility.” Wires 70 and 72 together constitute a plurality of data channels. Power Channels: Col. 8 lines 26-29, “Cable 60 includes a power conductor, shown as 20 AWG VBus power wire 74, and a ground conductor, shown as 20 AWG VBus ground wire 76.” Wires 74 and 76 together constitute a plurality of power channels).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the outer elongated core of the Alakarhu/Carscallen/Wessels connecting cable to incorporate a plurality of power channels and plurality of data channels, as taught by Gimblet, because the base combination’s own tether is already configured to carry both power and data ([0088]), and Gimblet discloses a known, predictable way to satisfy that same requirement by arranging discrete power conductors around a central optical fiber unit so that “cable 10 supplies both power and communication capability within a single cable” (col. 4, lines 21-22).
22. Claim 28 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 9.
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.
23. Claim(s) 10 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alakarhu in view of Carscallen further in view of Wessels further in view of Gimblet as applied to claim 9 and 28 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5913003 Arroyo et al. (hereinafter Arroyo).
24. Regarding Claim 10, Alakarhu in view of Carscallen further in view of Wessels further in view of Gimblet discloses The connecting cable of claim 9,
Alakarhu in view of Carscallen further in view of Wessels further in view of Gimblet does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of power channels and the plurality of data channels are wound around the optical fiber channel.
Further, Arroyo teaches wherein the plurality of power channels and the plurality of data channels are wound around the optical fiber channel (Col. 4 Lines 30-32, “wherein the plurality of power channels and the plurality of data channels are wound around the optical fiber channel.” Core tube 30 corresponds to the optical fiber channel. Col. 4 lines 34-36, “A pair of 22 gauge copper conductors 34 are helically wrapped about core tube 30, one on each side of the core tube 30.” This is exact “wound around” language applied to power conductors relative to the optical fiber containing core. Col. 4 lines 40-42, “the strength members are helically wrapped about the core and the conductors 34 form two elements in the contiguous strength jacket 38.” -i.e., the conductors, like the strength members, are wound directly around the tube enclosing the optical fiber.).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the combination to wind Gimblet’s plurality of power channels and plurality of data channels around the optical channel, as taught by Arroyo, because Arroyo expressly teaches that conductors surrounding an optical fiber core Col. 3 lines 49-50, “could be wrapped helically about the core tube” as a known, interchangeable alternative to longitudinal placement, and because the base claim’s coiled, repeatedly-elongated cable structure would predictably benefit from the flex an stretch tolerance that helically would elements are know to provide over straight, longitudinal ones. Applying this known winding technique to Gimblet’s known channel arrangement yields the predictable, expected result of a more flex-tolerant cable.
25. Claim 29 is a system claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in device claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights