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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 17, 18, & 20 include limitations that require “the gap extending continuously between the insulation film of each cable group”. There is no description in the text or drawings of the specification that establishes the gap as being continuous in any way. The claims will be interpreted without said limitations.
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, 4-9, & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gundel (US Patent Application Publication # 2013/0168149) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gundel (US Patent Application Publication # 2013/0168149) in view of Wright et al. (US Patent # 10,964,448).
Regarding Claim 1, Gundel discloses a ribbon cable (i.e. shielded electrical cable 2/1402), comprising:
a plurality of cable groups (i.e. conductor sets 4/1404) arranged side by side with a gap (i.e. 1834a or longitudinal splits 18 or minimum separation d1 & thickness Tap) extending
a first covering film (i.e. upper shielding film 8/1408) arranged on a first side of the cable groups, the first covering film has a first edge portion (i.e. pinched regions 3518/3618/3718/3818/3918/4018), a first bonding portion (i.e. upper cover portions 7/1407) and a first spacing portion (i.e. transition portion 1834); and
a second covering film (i.e. lower shielding film 8/1408) arranged on a second side of the cable groups opposite the first covering film, the second covering film has a second edge portion bonded to the first edge portion (i.e. pinched regions 3518/3618/3718/3818/3918/4018), a second bonding portion (i.e. lower cover portions 7/1407) and a second spacing portion (i.e. transition portion 1834), the first bonding portion and the second bonding portion are bonded to each of the cable groups, the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion are located at the gap and are detached and separated from each other in a width direction of the cable and between each pair of adjacent cable groups by the gap, wherein the gap (i.e. 1834a or longitudinal splits 18 or minimum separation d1 & thickness Tap) is defined between the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion (i.e. transition portion 1834) along at least a portion of a length of the cable; and the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion are not bonded together in the area of the gap (Fig. 1, 2a, 4c, 5a-5e, 7b, 8, 10a, 15a-15f, 16a, 21; Abstract; Paragraphs 0036-0045, 0085-0091, 0108, 0112, 0119-0130, 0152-0160, 0174, 0195, 0223). Gundel shows that the edges of the shielded cable are terminated by pinched regions in which the shielding films are bonded to each other. The figures show that there exists a space at transition portion 1834 which is marked as 1834a in which the adhesive layer is not present. Furthermore, as mentioned throughout the disclosure of Gundel, the adhesive layer is optional and, even when it is present, it is not present at 1834a. Even further, all embodiments of Gundel require a minimum separation d1 between the pinched portions of the shielding films so there is always a gap in those pinched portions between each conductor set and an adjacent conductor set and also between each of their respective ground conductors.
Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the gap extend continuously between each pair of adjacent cable groups, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Wright teaches a gap (i.e. spaces between cable cores 204a/304a & 204b/304b) extending continuously between each pair of adjacent cable groups (i.e. cable cores 204a/304a & 204b/304b), the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion are located at the gap and are detached and separated from each other continuously in a width direction of the cable and between each pair of adjacent cable groups by the gap, wherein the gap is defined between the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion along at least a portion of a length of the cable; and the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion are not bonded together in the area of the gap (Fig. 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 6; Abstract; Column 4, line 36- Column 8, line 18).
Wright shows that it is well known in the art of ribbon cables to provide a continuous space or gap between adjacent cable groups or cores. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the claimed continuous gap between the adjacent cable groups of Gundel, as taught by Wright, in order to prevent contact between said cable groups. It has also been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 4, Gundel discloses that the first edge portion and the second edge portion (i.e. pinched regions 3518/3618/3718/3818/3918/4018) are located at an outer side of an outermost cable group of the cable groups (Fig. 1, 5d, 5e, 15a-15f; Paragraph 0152-0157). Gundel shows that the edges of the shielded cable are terminated by pinched regions in which the shielding films are bonded to each other.
Regarding Claim 5, Gundel discloses that the first covering film is bonded to each of the cable groups by a hot melt adhesive disposed on a surface of the first covering film facing the cable groups (Paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 6, Gundel discloses that the second covering film is bonded to each of the cable groups by the hot melt adhesive disposed on a surface of the second covering film facing the cable groups (Paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 7, Gundel discloses that the first covering film is an insulation polyester tape (i.e. non-conductive polymeric layer made of polyester) or a shielding tape (i.e. shielding film w/ conductive layer) (Paragraph 0066-0067).
Regarding Claim 8, Gundel discloses that the second covering film is an insulation polyester tape (i.e. non-conductive polymeric layer made of polyester) or a shielding tape (i.e. shielding film w/ conductive layer) (Paragraph 0066-0067).
Regarding Claim 9, Gundel discloses that each of the cable groups (i.e. conductor sets 4/1404) has an insulation cable (i.e. insulated conductors 6/1406) with a core wire (i.e. conductor 6a) and an insulation layer (i.e. insulator 6b) wrapped around the core wire (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0036).
Regarding Claim 12, Gundel discloses that the insulation cable and ground wire of each cable group are wound together continuously about a perimeter of the cable group by an insulation film (Fig. 4c, 19; Paragraph 0078-0081, 0090, 0117, 0165, 0173-0174). Gundel states that further layers such as one or more protective layers and/or one or more jacket layers can be included in the arrangement. Furthermore, the insulated conductors of each conductor set can be jointly insulated as shown in Fig. 19. Gundel also mentions that the configuration and placement of the ground conductors is optional and rearrangeable.
Regarding Claim 13, Gundel discloses that each cable group (i.e. conductor sets 4/1404) has a pair of adjacent insulation cables (i.e. insulated conductors 6/1406) (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0036).
Regarding Claim 14, Gundel discloses that the ground wire (i.e. ground conductors 12/1412) is located on either side of the adjacent insulation cables (Fig. 4c; Paragraphs 0043, 0085, 0087, 0089).
Regarding Claim 15, Gundel discloses that the plurality of cable groups (i.e. conductor sets 4/1404) include six cable groups (Fig. 1, 5d, 5e, 15a-15f Paragraph 0004-0007, 0035-0042, 0046). Gundel does not explicitly limit the number of conductor sets.
Regarding Claim 16, Gundel discloses that the ribbon cable is a high-speed data transmission ribbon cable (i.e. high speed transmission lines) (Paragraph 0105-0106).
Regarding Claim 17, Gundel discloses that the insulation film wound about each cable group of the plurality of cable groups is discrete and separate from the insulation film wound around each of the other cable groups of the plurality of cable groups, the gap extends Gundel states that further layers such as one or more protective layers and/or one or more jacket layers can be included in the arrangement. Furthermore, the insulated conductors of each conductor set can be jointly insulated as shown in Fig. 19. Gundel also mentions that the configuration and placement of the ground conductors is optional and rearrangeable.
Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the gap extend continuously between the insulation film of each cable group, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 18, Gundel discloses a ribbon cable (i.e. shielded electrical cable 2/1402), comprising:
a plurality of cable groups (i.e. conductor sets 4/1404) arranged side by side with a gap (i.e. 1834a or longitudinal splits 18 or minimum separation d1 & thickness Tap) between each pair of adjacent cable groups, each cable group wound continuously about its perimeter by an insulation film, the gap extending
a first covering film (i.e. upper shielding film 8/1408) arranged on a first side of the cable groups, the first covering film has a first edge portion (i.e. edge shown in at least Fig. 1), a first bonding portion (i.e. upper cover portions 7/1407) and a first spacing portion (i.e. transition portion 1834); and
a second covering film (i.e. lower shielding film 8/1408) arranged on a second side of the cable groups opposite the first covering film, the second covering film has a second edge portion (i.e. edge shown in at least Fig. 1) bonded to the first edge portion, a second bonding portion (i.e. lower cover portions 7/1407) and a second spacing portion (i.e. transition portion 1834), the first bonding portion and the second bonding portion are bonded to each of the cable groups, the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion are located at the gap and are detached from each other in a width direction of the cable and between each pair of adjacent cable groups by the gap such that the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion do not contact each other between each pair of adjacent cable groups (Fig. 1, 2a, 4c, 5a-5e, 7b, 8a, 10a, 15a-15f, 16a, 21; Abstract; Paragraphs 0036-0045, 0085-0091, 0108, 0119-0130, 0152-0160, 0174, 0195, 0223). Gundel shows that the edges of the shielded cable are terminated by pinched regions in which the shielding films are bonded to each other. The figures show that there exists a space at transition portion 1834 which is marked as 1834a in which the adhesive layer is not present. Furthermore, as mentioned throughout the disclosure of Gundel, the adhesive layer is optional and, even when it is present, it is not present at 1834a. Gundel states that further layers such as one or more protective layers and/or one or more jacket layers can be included in the arrangement. Furthermore, the insulated conductors of each conductor set can be jointly insulated as shown in Fig. 19. Even further, all embodiments of Gundel require a minimum separation d1 between the pinched portions of the shielding films so there is always a gap in those pinched portions between each conductor set and an adjacent conductor set and also between each of their respective ground conductors.
Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the gap extend continuously between each pair of adjacent cable groups, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Wright teaches a gap (i.e. spaces between cable cores 204a/304a & 204b/304b) extending continuously between each pair of adjacent cable groups (i.e. cable cores 204a/304a & 204b/304b), the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion are located at the gap and are detached from each other continuously in a width direction of the cable and between each pair of adjacent cable groups by the gap such that the first spacing portion and the second spacing portion do not contact each other between each pair of adjacent cable groups (Fig. 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 6; Abstract; Column 4, line 36- Column 8, line 18).
Wright shows that it is well known in the art of ribbon cables to provide a continuous space or gap between adjacent cable groups or cores. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the claimed continuous gap between the adjacent cable groups of Gundel, as taught by Wright, in order to prevent contact between said cable groups. It has also been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 19, Gundel discloses that each of the cable groups has an insulation cable (i.e. insulated conductors 6/1406) with a core wire (i.e. conductor 6a), the insulation film (i.e. insulator 6b) wound around the insulation cable and the ground wire (Fig. 1, 4c; Paragraphs 0036,0043, 0085, 0087, 0089). Gundel states that further layers such as one or more protective layers and/or one or more jacket layers can be included in the arrangement. Furthermore, the insulated conductors of each conductor set can be jointly insulated (i.e. 4506) as shown in Fig. 19. Gundel also mentions that the configuration and placement of the ground conductors is optional and rearrangeable.
Regarding Claim 20, Gundel discloses that the insulation film wrapped around each cable group is separated by the gap from the insulation film wrapped wound around each adjacent cable group, the gap extending Gundel states that further layers such as one or more protective layers and/or one or more jacket layers can be included in the arrangement. Furthermore, the insulated conductors of each conductor set can be jointly insulated (i.e. 4506) as shown in Fig. 19.
Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the gap extend continuously between the insulation film of each cable group, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s amendment in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has eliminated the conflicting limitations that required a constant gap height and a height of the gap corresponding to diameters of the ground wires. Therefore, those parts of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection are moot. However, the Applicant has continued to argue that “the gap extending continuously between the insulation film of each cable group” is supported in the specification as filed. There is no description in the text or drawings of the specification that establishes the gap as being continuous in any way. The Applicant has included annotated figures in order to support this argument. However, the Examiner does not believe the Applicant’s drawings provide sufficient detail to assert that the gap is continuous since the gap is not shown as continuous in a longitudinal direction. Even further, the blurriness of the drawings does not allow the Examiner to ascertain if the gap is continuous or discontinuous in any way.
Additionally, the Applicant continues to argue that Gundel does not teach the gap arrangement as claimed. However, as stated before, all embodiments of Gundel require a minimum separation d1 between the pinched portions of the shielding films so there is always a gap in those pinched portions between each conductor set and an adjacent conductor set and also between each of their respective ground conductors. Also, since the adhesive is optional, when it is not included the separation between the pinched portions which Gundel requires will be present. Additionally, Gundel states throughout the disclosure that the optional adhesive layers can be selectively removed or placed and may extend fully or partially between the cover portions. The adhesive layers are also described as being able to be discontinuous.
Furthermore, the Examiner has provided an obviousness rejection above in view of Wright which shows that it is well known and obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the claimed gap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847