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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasper et al. (German Patent Application Publication # DE29808657) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kasper et al. (German Patent Application Publication # DE29808657) in view of Watanabe et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 20130319724).
Regarding Claim 1, Kasper discloses a cable (i.e. cable 1) for electrically transmitting data, having:
two insulated line wires (i.e. wires 11 & 15 forming a wire pair w/ wire insulation 13 & 17), each of which has an inner conductor (i.e. wires 11/15 which are stranded copper wires) and which are stranded with one another to form a stranded line pair;
a first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) which at least partly surrounds the two insulated line wires, wherein the first dielectric is arranged partly on outer surfaces of the insulated line wires, and wherein an interior space at least partly enclosed by the first dielectric is partly filled by the stranded line pair;
a second dielectric (i.e. inner jacket 9) which at least partly surrounds the first dielectric; and
a shielding (i.e. shielding braid 5) which at least partly surrounds the second dielectric,
wherein the first dielectric is at least a predetermined distance (A) from the shielding,
wherein the first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) has an elliptical cross-sectional shape, wherein the elliptical cross-sectional shape extends within a plane which extends substantially orthogonal to a cable longitudinal axis (Fig. 1; Abstract; Paragraphs 0015-0023). The shape is shown in Fig. 1 to be the same as the Applicant’s own drawings.
Alternatively, Watanabe teaches the first dielectric (i.e. plastic tape 5 or insulation 3) has an elliptical cross-sectional shape, wherein the elliptical cross-sectional shape extends within a plane which extends substantially orthogonal to a cable longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, 2A, 2B, 5A, 5B, 6; Abstract; Paragraphs 0009-0032, 0043-0052, 0085). Watanabe teaches that it is well known in the art of differential signal pair transmission cables to make the cable and its dielectrics/insulation in an elliptical or oval shape in order to suppress the formation of a gap at an interface between the insulation and the shielding to suppress or prevent an increase in skew and differential-to-common mode conversion quantity, thus maintaining good cable performance. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the dielectric of Kasper have an elliptical cross-sectional shape, as taught by Watanabe, in order to suppress the formation of a gap at an interface between the insulation and the shielding to suppress or prevent an increase in skew and differential-to-common mode conversion quantity, thus maintaining good cable performance. Furthermore, the court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding Claim 2, Kasper discloses that the second dielectric (i.e. inner jacket 9) completely surrounds or encloses the first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) in the radial direction (Fig. 1; Abstract; Paragraphs 0015-0023).
Regarding Claim 4, Kasper discloses that each insulated line wire (i.e. wires 11 & 15 forming a wire pair w/ wire insulation 13 & 17) has a circular cross-sectional shape with a geometric center, wherein the circular cross-sectional shape extends within a plane which extends substantially orthogonal to the cable longitudinal axis,
the geometric centers of the insulated line wires are arranged on a major axis of the elliptical cross-sectional shape and symmetrically with respect to a minor axis of the elliptical cross-sectional shape (Fig. 1). The shape is shown in Fig. 1 to be the same as the Applicant’s own drawings.
Regarding Claim 5, Kasper discloses that the elliptical cross-sectional shape has two opposing vertices along each of the major axis and the minor axis,
the two vertices of the major axis form a path with a first predetermined length and the two vertices of the minor axis form a path with a second predetermined length,
a ratio of the first predetermined length to the second predetermined length corresponds at least to 1.4 to 1, for example 2:1. The shape is shown in Fig. 1 to be the same as the Applicant’s own drawings, therefore it would inherently have the same ratio of the first predetermined length to the second predetermined length. Also, see the rejection of claim 1 in view of Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 15, Kasper discloses that the two insulated line wires (i.e. wires 11 & 15 forming a wire pair w/ wire insulation 13 & 17) are stranded in a strand lay direction with a strand lay length so as to form the stranded line pair, the first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) is wound around the stranded line pair in or contrary to the strand lay direction (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0015, 0019). First separating layer 21 is a polyester film that is wound around the wire insulation 13/17 of the wire pair 11/15.
Regarding Claim 17, Kasper discloses that the elliptical cross-sectional shape has two opposing vertices along each of the major axis and the minor axis. The shape is shown in Fig. 1 to be the same as the Applicant’s own drawings. Also, see the rejection of claim 1 in view of Watanabe.
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 6, 16, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper et al. (German Patent Application Publication # DE29808657).
Regarding Claim 6, Kasper discloses a cable (i.e. cable 1) for electrically transmitting data, having:
two insulated line wires (i.e. wires 11 & 15 forming a wire pair w/ wire insulation 13 & 17), each of which has an inner conductor (i.e. wires 11/15 which are stranded copper wires) and which are stranded with one another to form a stranded line pair;
a first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) which at least partly surrounds the two insulated line wires, wherein the first dielectric is arranged partly on outer surfaces of the insulated line wires, and wherein an interior space at least partly enclosed by the first dielectric is partly filled by the stranded line pair;
a second dielectric (i.e. inner jacket 9) which at least partly surrounds the first dielectric; and
a shielding (i.e. shielding braid 5) which at least partly surrounds the second dielectric,
wherein the first dielectric is at least a predetermined distance (A) from the shielding,
wherein the first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) forms the interior space (i.e. interstices occurring in the interior between the core insulations 13, 17 and/or inner shell 19) in a plane extending orthogonal to a cable longitudinal axis by two side portions arranged parallel to one another and two semicircular portions, in each case one semicircular portion is arranged at least partly along the outer surface of one of the insulated line wires, and the two side portions arranged parallel to one another are arranged between the two semicircular portions and end therewith so as to form the interior space (Fig. 1; Abstract; Paragraphs 0015-0023). The shape is shown in Fig. 1 to be the same as the Applicant’s own drawings. The interstices occurring in the interior between the core insulations 13, 17 and the separating layer 21 can remain unfilled.
Kasper does not explicitly disclose that each semicircular portion comprises a thickness that differs from a thickness of one of the two side portions.
However, it is well known in the art that making a material thicker would increase its strength and can help reinforce a structure where needed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make each semicircular portion comprise a thickness that differs from a thickness of one of the two side portions, 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, the court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding Claim 16, Kasper does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of each semicircular portion is greater than the thickness of one of the two side portions.
However, it is well known in the art that making a material thicker would increase its strength and can help reinforce a structure where needed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make each semicircular portion comprise a thickness that differs from a thickness of one of the two side portions, 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, the court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding Claim 18, Kasper discloses that the second dielectric (i.e. inner jacket 9) completely surrounds or encloses the first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) in the radial direction (Fig. 1; Abstract; Paragraphs 0015-0023).
Regarding Claim 19, Kasper discloses that the two insulated line wires (i.e. wires 11 & 15 forming a wire pair w/ wire insulation 13 & 17) are stranded in a strand lay direction with a strand lay length so as to form the stranded line pair, the first dielectric (i.e. first separating layer 21) is wound around the stranded line pair in or contrary to the strand lay direction (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0015, 0019). First separating layer 21 is a polyester film that is wound around the wire insulation 13/17 of the wire pair 11/15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Kasper does not disclose that the first dielectric has an elliptical cross-sectional shape. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has addressed this feature in the rejection above and even provided an alternative rejection. Furthermore, the Applicant makes a distinction between the shape in Kasper and the elliptical cross-sectional shape in Fig. 2 of the Applicant’s specification and states that the shape in Kasper is a stadium, discorectangle, obround, or sausage shape. However, the shape in Kasper is the same as the one shown in Applicant’s own Fig. 1 which the Applicant refers to as “similar to an ellipse” and never differentiates in a functional way from the ellipse in Fig. 2. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification suggests that they are functionally equivalent and thus interchangeable. Even further, the Examiner has provided an alternative rejection in view of Watanabe which provides significant motivation for using an elliptical cross-section and modifying Kasper to have one.
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.
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 at (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