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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehrli et al. (9697929) in view of Yamasaki et al. (2015/0237770).
Wehrli et al. discloses a communication cable comprising: a jacket (112) comprised of a plastic polymer material; a cable core comprising a plurality of twisted pairs of conductors (102) and a separator (108) positioned to separate each of the twisted pairs in the plurality of twisted pairs, wherein each of the conductors are covered, at least in part, by an insulation material (104) having a first charge affinity; and a metal foil tape (110) disposed around the cable core to surround the plurality of twisted pairs of conductors and positioned between the cable core and the jacket within the communications cable, the metal foil tape configured to reduce cable-to-cable crosstalk with a similar cable including a cable core of twisted pairs of conductors running adjacent to the communications cable, the metal foil tape comprising: a metal layer (302) including a first side and a second side; a coating (300/304) applied directly to the second side of the metal layer, wherein the coating is configured to be adjacent to and surround the cable core; a substrate layer (304/300) deposited directly onto the first side of the metal layer; and the substrate layer being configured to be adjacent to and be surrounded by the jacket (re-claim 1).
Wehrli et al. does not disclose the coating being a triboelectric coating and comprising a polyolefin material; and the substrate layer comprising a different material composition from the triboelectric coating and the jacket (re-claim 1).
Yamasaki et al. discloses a metal foil tape comprising a metal layer (13); a coating (11) comprising a polyolefin ([0041]); and a substrate (15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the metal foil tape (110) of Wehrli et al. with the metal foil tape (Fig. 2b or 4b) taught by Yamasaki et al., such metal foil tape has high shielding properties, high shape-retaining property, and provides less corrosion (Yamasaki, [0014]).
It is noted that since the modified cable of Wehrli et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, it can be used for transmitting data at rates of at least 10 Gb/s (re-claim 1).
It is also noted that in the modified cable of Wehrli et al., the coating (11 of Yamasaki) is a triboelectric coating since it comprises material as claimed; the triboelectric coating is applied to the second side of the metal layer (13 of Yamasaki); the triboelectric coating (11) is configured to be adjacent to and surround the cable core; the metal layer (13 of Yamasaki) has a second charge affinity; the triboelectric coating has a third charge affinity; the first charge affinity, the second charge affinity, and the third charge affinity are different; the third charge affinity (polyolefin, see Yamasaki [0041]) is closer in value to the first charge (Wehrli, col. 6, lines26-30, polyolefin) than the second charge affinity (metal) value is to the first charge affinity; a triboelectric effect between the triboelectric coating and the insulation material of the conductors is less than a triboelectric effect between the metal layer and the insulation material of the conductors; the substrate layer (15 of Yamasaki) is deposited directly onto the first side of the metal layer; the substrate layer comprises a different material composition from the triboelectric coating and the jacket (i.e., Yamasaki discloses substrate 15 and coating 11 made of different materials, [0041]. Yamasaki discloses the coating made of polyethylene. Wehrli discloses jacket 112 made of PVC) (re-claim 1).
Re-claim 3, Wehrli et al., as modified, discloses the third charge affinity of the triboelectric coating (11 of Yamasaki, polyolefin) being closer to a charge affinity of the jacket (112 of Wehrli, col. 7, lines 55-59, polyolefin) than a charge affinity of the substrate (15 of Yamasaki, [0041], polyamide or polybutylene terephthalate).
Re-claim 9, Wehrli et al. discloses the metal layer comprising a continuous sheet (col. 7, line 33).
Re-claim 13, Wehrli et al. discloses the metal layer comprising aluminum (col. 7, line 41).
Re-claim 14, in the modified cable of Wehrli et al., the third charge affinity of the triboelectric coating (polyolefin) having a charge affinity that is different from a charge affinity of the insulation material (104, FEP) and different from the second charge affinity of the metal layer (aluminum).
Re-claim 15, Wehrli et al. discloses the triboelectric coating being a solid layer strip-type film.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kithuka et al. (9424964) in view of Yamasaki et al.
Kithuka et al. discloses a communications cable (100, Fig. 1) comprising a jacket (115) comprising a plastic polymer material; a cable core comprising a plurality of twisted pairs of conductors (105) and a separator (110) positioned to separate each of the twisted pairs in the plurality of twisted pairs, wherein each of the conductors are covered, at least in part, by an insulation material having a first charge affinity; and a metal foil tape (120) disposed around the cable core to surround the plurality of twisted pairs of conductors and positioned between the cable core and the jacket within the communications cable, the metal foil tape configured to reduce cable-to-cable crosstalk with a similar cable including a cable core of twisted pairs of conductors running adjacent to the communications cable, the metal foil tape comprising: a metal layer (525) including a first side and a second side and having a second charge affinity; a coating (530/535) applied directly to the second side of the metal layer, wherein the coating is configured to be adjacent to and surround the cable core and a third charge affinity; a substrate layer (535/530) deposited directly onto the first side of the metal layer; and the substrate layer being configured to be adjacent to and be surrounded by the jacket (re-claim 1).
Kithuka et al. does not disclose the coating (530/535) comprising a polyolefin material and the substrate layer (535/530) comprising a different material composition from the triboelectric coating and the jacket (re-claim 1).
Yamasaki et al. discloses a metal foil tape comprising a metal layer (13); a coating (11); and a substrate (15). Yamasaki et al. teaches that the same or different resins may be used to form the coating and the substrate, wherein the coating comprises a polyolefin ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use different material compositions for the coating and the substrate of Kithuka et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since Yamasaki teaches that the two layers can be made of the same or different resins. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use polyolefin, as taught by Yamasaki et al., for the coating of Kithuka et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable.
It is noted that since the modified cable of Kithuka et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, it can be used for transmitting data at rates of at least 10 Gb/s (re-claim 1).
It is also noted that in the modified cable of Kithuka et al., the coating (530/535) is a triboelectric coating since it comprises material as claimed; the first charge affinity, the second charge affinity, and the third charge affinity are different; the third charge affinity (polyolefin, see Yamasaki [0041]) is closer in value to the first charge (Kithuka, col. 5, lines 61-65, polyolefin) than the second charge affinity value (metal) is to the first charge affinity; a triboelectric effect between the triboelectric coating and the insulation material of the conductors is less than a triboelectric effect between the metal layer and the insulation material of the conductors; the substrate layer comprises a different material composition from the coating (11 taught by Yamasaki) and the jacket (115, PVC, see Kithuka, col. 6, lines 41-56) (re-claim 1).
Re-claims 4 and 5, Kithuka et al. discloses the metal layer (525) having cuts (540) that create discontinuous regions in the metal layer, wherein the discontinuous regions have the same size and shape.
Re-claim 10, Kithuka et al. discloses the metal foil tape being wrapped around the length of the cable in a cigarette wrapping style (col. 19, lines 20-22, shield layer wrapped around the pairs without spiraling).
Re-claim 11, Kithuka et al. discloses the metal foil tape being spirally wrapped around the length of the cable (col. 19, lines 23-24).
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNutt et al. (10102946) in view of Yamasaki et al.
McNutt et al. discloses a communications cable (1400, Fig. 14) comprising a jacket (1415) comprising a plastic polymer material; a cable core comprising a plurality of twisted pairs of conductors (1405) and a separator (1410) positioned to separate each of the twisted pairs in the plurality of twisted pairs, wherein each of the conductors are covered, at least in part, by an insulation material having a first charge affinity; and a metal foil tape (1420) disposed around the cable core to surround the plurality of twisted pairs of conductors and positioned between the cable core and the jacket within the communications cable, the metal foil tape configured to reduce cable-to-cable crosstalk with a similar cable including a cable core of twisted pairs of conductors running adjacent to the communications cable, the metal foil tape (Fig. 8A) comprising: a metal layer (810) including a first side and a second side and having a second charge affinity; a triboelectric coating (805/815) being applied directly to the second side of the metal layer, wherein the triboelectric coating is configured to be adjacent to and surround the cable core, and wherein the triboelectric coating comprises a polyolefin material (col. 16, lines 16-21) having a third charge affinity; a substrate layer (815/805) deposited directly onto the first side of the metal layer; and the substrate layer being configured to be adjacent to and be surrounded by the jacket (re-claim 1). McNutt et al. also discloses the coating (805/815) being a patterned strip-type film (re-claim 16).
McNutt et al. does not disclose the substrate layer (815/805) comprising a different material composition from the triboelectric coating and the jacket (re-claim 1).
Yamasaki et al. discloses a metal foil tape comprising a metal layer (13); a coating (11); and a substrate (15). Yamasaki et al. teaches that the same or different resins may be used to form the coating and the substrate ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use different material compositions for the coating and the substrate of McNutt et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since Yamasaki teaches that the two layers can be made of the same or different resins.
It is noted that since the modified cable of McNutt et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, it can be used for transmitting data at rates of at least 10 Gb/s (re-claim 1).
It is also noted that in the modified cable of McNutt et al., the first charge affinity, the second charge affinity, and the third charge affinity are different; the third charge affinity (polyolefin, see Yamasaki [0041]) is closer in value to the first charge (insulation, also dielectric) than the second charge affinity value (metal) is to the first charge affinity; a triboelectric effect between the triboelectric coating and the insulation material of the conductors is less than a triboelectric effect between the metal layer and the insulation material of the conductors; the substrate layer comprises a different material composition from the coating (taught by Yamasaki) and the jacket (1415, McNutt, col. 23, lines 30-36) (re-claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action (OA) merely cites to portions in the disclosure of Yamasaki ([0041]) and Wehrli (col. 6, lines 26-30) in an attempt to disclose the claimed features. However, these cited portions in Yamasaki and Wehrli merely describe a disclosed material without any specific teachings on the material’s affinity charge. The OA merely states a conclusion that the third charge affinity is closer in value to the first charge affinity than the second charge affinity to the first charge affinity without providing any citations to evidence from Yamasaki and Wehrli.
Examiner would disagree because the OA does provide citations from the disclosure of Yamasaki and Wehrli, see the OA page 5. In the modified cable of Wehrli, the coating (11 of Yamasaki, having a third charge affinity) is made of polyolefin (Yamasaki, [0041]); the conductor insulation (104 of Wehrli, having a first charge affinity) is made polyolefin (Wehrli, col. 6, lines 26-30); and the metal layer (having a second charge affinity) comprises aluminum (Yamasaki, [0043] and Wehrli, col. 7, line 41). The fact that the materials disclosed in Wehrli and Yamasaki are the same as the material disclosed and claimed by the applicant, see application’s publication, paragraphs [0017]-[0019], the third charge affinity is closer in value to the first charge affinity than the second charge affinity value is to the first charge affinity.
Regarding the Kithuka and Yamasaki combination, applicant again argues that the OA merely cites to portions in the disclosure of Yamasaki ([0041]) and Kithuka (col. 5 lines 61-65) in an attempt to disclose the claimed features. However, these cited portions in Yamasaki and Kithuka merely describe a disclosed material without any specific teachings on the material’s affinity charge. The OA merely states a conclusion that the third charge affinity is closer in value to the first charge affinity than the second charge affinity to the first charge affinity without providing any citations to evidence from Yamasaki and Kithuka.
Examiner would disagree because the OA does provide citations from the disclosure of Yamasaki and Kithuka, see the OA page 9. In the modified cable of Kithuka, the coating (modified layer 530 or 535 of Kithuka, having a third charge affinity) is made of polyolefin (see Yamasaki, [0041]); the conductor insulation (of Kithuka, having a first charge affinity) is made polyolefin (Kithuka, col. 5 lines 61-65); and the metal layer (having a second charge affinity) comprises metal. The fact that the materials disclosed in Kithuka and Yamasaki are the same as the material disclosed and claimed by the applicant, see application’s publication, paragraphs [0017]-[0019], the third charge affinity is closer in value to the first charge affinity than the second charge affinity value is to the first charge affinity.
Regarding the McNutt and Yamasaki combination, applicant argues that McNutt in view of Yamasaki fail to cure the deficiencies of Wehrli in view of Yamasaki with respect to claim 1. Examiner would disagree because claims 1 and 16 are rejected in view of McNutt and Yamasaki only, not including Wehrli.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841