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
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 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damm (EP 2112731) in view of either Yamaguchi et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0255627) or Harris (PG Pub. 2009/0311456).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 21, Damm teaches wrappable woven EMI resistant sleeve (contains a wire in the warp) for routing and protecting an elongate member comprising a wall having opposite edges extending lengthwise between opposite ends with the opposite edges being configured to be wrapped about a central longitudinal axis and the wall takes a tubular configuration having the inner surface of the wall bounding an enclosed cavity sized for receipt of the elongate member therein and an outer surface of the wall facing radially outwardly from the central longitudinal axis [Figure 1]. The wall is woven with warp filaments extending generally parallel to the central longitudinal axis and weft filaments extending generally transversely to the warp filaments and at least one or more of the warp filaments being a wire [0024]. Damm is silent regarding the claimed foil layer. However, either of Yamaguchi et al. or Harris teach a foil layer fixed to affixed to at least one of the outer surface (and Yamaguchi et al. teaches foil layer affixed to the inner surface of the wall including affixed to the inner surface with the foil layer having a first end and a second end brought into contact with one another upon the wall being wrapped into the tubular configuration (Yamaguchi et al. teaches “ The selected width will correspond generally to the sleeve circumference, and thus determines the diameter of the sleeve 10 that is desired, but, as shown in FIGS. 1-3, the selected width extending between the opposite edges 18, 20 should be provided so that when the sleeve 10 is in its relaxed or substantially relaxed state and in its closed, tubular configuration, the edges 18, 20 along the split seam 14 overlap and extend beyond one another, if desired, to bound the cavity 16 about its entire circumference. The selected width will correspond generally to the sleeve circumference, and thus determines the diameter of the sleeve 10 that is desired, but, as shown in FIGS. 1-3, the selected width extending between the opposite edges 18, 20 should be provided so that when the sleeve 10 is in its relaxed or substantially relaxed state and in its closed, tubular configuration, the edges 18, 20 along the split seam 14 overlap and extend beyond one another, if desired, to bound the cavity 16 about its entire circumference. The selected width will correspond generally to the sleeve circumference, and thus determines the diameter of the sleeve 10 that is desired, but, as shown in FIGS. 1-3, the selected width extending between the opposite edges 18, 20 should be provided so that when the sleeve 10 is in its relaxed or substantially relaxed state and in its closed, tubular configuration, the edges 18, 20 along the split seam 14 overlap and extend beyond one another, if desired, to bound the cavity 16 about its entire circumference. The selected width will correspond generally to the sleeve circumference, and thus determines the diameter of the sleeve 10 that is desired, but, as shown in FIGS. 1-3, the selected width extending between the opposite edges 18, 20 should be provided so that when the sleeve 10 is in its relaxed or substantially relaxed state and in its closed, tubular configuration, the edges 18, 20 along the split seam 14 overlap and extend beyond one another, if desired, to bound the cavity 16 about its entire circumference. The selected width will correspond generally to the sleeve circumference, and thus determines the diameter of the sleeve 10 that is desired, but, as shown in FIGS. 1-3, the selected width extending between the opposite edges 18, 20 should be provided so that when the sleeve 10 is in its relaxed or substantially relaxed state and in its closed, tubular configuration, the edges 18, 20 along the split seam 14 overlap and extend beyond one another, if desired, to bound the cavity 16 about its entire circumference. The selected width will correspond generally to the sleeve circumference, and thus determines the diameter of the sleeve 10 that is desired, but, as shown in FIGS. 1-3, the selected width extending between the opposite edges 18, 20 should be provided so that when the sleeve 10 is in its relaxed or substantially relaxed state and in its closed, tubular configuration, the edges 18, 20 along the split seam 14 overlap and extend beyond one another, if desired, to bound the cavity 16 about its entire circumference.” and therefore also teaches embodiments where the edges don’t overlap, but abut one another Yamaguchi et al. at 0032, 0036 and Fig, 3,3a, 3,b, and 3c and Harris at Fig, 4 and 5, 0011, 0013 and 0030 in order to improve EMI property. The foil layer has a first end configured in generally flush relation with an inner one of opposite edges and a second end configured in generally flush relation with an outer one of opposite edges in Yamaguchi et al. and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Harris in order to facilitate accessing the inner portion easier, even though Fig. 5 show the end’s not aligned. The foil layer extends in an uninterrupted circumferentially continuous relation about the wall. A cantilevered second end extends beyond an outer one of the opposite edges and an inner face of the cantilevered second end is configured for adhesion to an outer face of the foil layer when the wall is in tubular configuration. The foil layer extends in uninterrupted, circumferentially continuous relation about said wall, with said foil layer having a first end and a second end brought into contact with one another upon said wall being wrapped into the tubular configuration (Fig. 5 of Harris and taught as an alternate embodiment in Yamaguchi et al. as set forth above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the foil layer of either of Yamaguchi et al. or Harris in Damm in order to improve EMI property and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, each of the warp filaments is a wire [0017 and 0020].
Regarding claim 4, one or more of the weft filaments is heat set to bias opposite edged into overlapping relation with one another [0021].
Regarding claims 5-6, each of the heat set weft filaments are monofilament of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) [0025].
Regarding claims 9-10, Damm is silent regarding the claimed adhesive to secure the foil layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use adhesive to secure the foil layer as is known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Harris teaches use of adhesive to teach use of adhesive to secure the foil layer teach the adhesive extends along an inner face of the cantilevered second end [0021] and Yamaguchi et al. teaches the foil layer is bonded to the adjacent layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adhesive and foil layer of Harris and Yamaguchi et al. in order to secure the foil layer and provide EMI properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Harris teaches a release paper releasably bonded to the adhesive along the inner face of the cantilevered second end with the release paper configured to be selectively removed from the adhesive to allow the inner face to be bonded to the outer face of the foil layer to fix the wall in a tubular configuration. Harris is silent regarding the release paper being a film. However, given the limited number of types of release mechanisms attached to adhesive, it would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use release film as it is an equivalent alternative known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Damm is silent regarding the film being impervious. However, it would have been obvious to make the film impervious given the limited number of options (pervious or impervious) and in order to prevent gas or liquids from penetrating in to the sleeve and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Yamaguchi et al. teach metal foil which is impervious and commonly use in the art as a foil since it is cost effective and provides good EMI shielding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the metal foil of Yamaguchi et al. and/or Harris et al. in Damm et al. since it is cost effective and provides good EMI shielding.
Regarding claim 16, Damm is silent regarding the claimed release paper. However, Harris et al. teach a release paper releasably bonded to the adhesive along the inner face of the cantilevered second end with the release paper configured to be selectively removed from the adhesive to allow the inner face to be bonded to the outer face of the foil layer to fix the wall in a tubular configuration. Harris et al. are silent regarding the release paper being a film. However, given the limited number of types of release mechanisms attached to adhesive, it would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use release film as it is an equivalent alternative known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to Harris et al. in Damm in order to allow the inner face to be bonded to the outer face of the foil layer to fix the wall in a tubular configuration and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damm (EP 2112731) in view of either Yamaguchi et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0255627) or Harris (PG Pub. 2009/0311456) in view of Shi et al. (CN 201430023).
Regarding claim 22, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed copper core being encapsulated by an outer tin layer. However, Shi et al. teaches using tin-plated copper wire which has strong electromagnetic interference resistance and good anti-corrosion performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tin plated copper of Shi et al. in the previous combination in order to provide strong electromagnetic interference resistance and good anti-corrosion performance and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Sellis and Marchisio have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Sellis and Marchisio in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights