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, 4-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damm (EP 2112731) in view of either Marchisio et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0166334) or Sellis et al. (PG Pub. 2012/0315419) in view of Shi et al. (CN 201430023) or over Damm (EP 2112731) in view of Marchisio et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0166334) in view of Sellis et al. (PG Pub. 2012/0315419) in view of Shi et al. (CN 201430023) or over Damm (EP 2112731) in view of Sellis et al. (PG Pub. 2012/0315419) in view of Marchisio et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0166334) in view of Shi et al. (CN 201430023).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13-15 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 Marchisio et al. or Sellis et al. teach a foil layer fixed to affixed to at least one of the outer surface or 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 as taught by Sellis et al. and Marchisio et al. [Marchisio at 0036 and Fig. 1A and Sellis at [0028] 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 shown in Fig. 1A fi Marchisio et al. The foil layer extends in an uninterrupted circumferentially continuous relation about the wall. The first end of the foil layer extends along one of the opposite edges of the wall and the second end of the foil layer extends form the inner surface of the other of the opposite edges of the wall along at least a portion of the outer surface [Marchisio at 0036 and Fig. 1A] and Sellis at [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the foil layer of either of Marchisio et al. or Sellis et al. in Damm in order to improve EMI property and arrive at the claimed invention.
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.
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 claim 8, Damm is silent regarding the foil layer. However, Sellis et al. teach the foil layer has a first end configured generally in flush relation with an inner one of the opposite edges and a cantilevered second end extending beyond an outer one of said opposite edges (shown by 78). In the alternative, it also would have been obvious to extend 76 beyond the end in order to perform the function of 78 and save money and time.
Regarding claim 9, 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, Sellis et al. teach use of adhesive to teach use of adhesive to secure the foil layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adhesive and foil layer of Sellis et al. in order to secure the foil layer and provide EMI properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Damm is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the foil adhesive layer. However, as set forth in the rejection of claim 9, Sellis et al. teach use of adhesive to teach use of adhesive to secure the foil layer and as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, Sellis et al. teach the foil layer has a first end configured generally in flush relation with an inner one of the opposite edges and a cantilevered second end extending beyond an outer one of said opposite edges (shown by 78) and the alternative, it also would have been obvious to extend 76 beyond the end in order to perform the function of 78 and save money and time. Sellis et al. teach the adhesive extends along an inner face of the cantilevered second end and the inner face is configured adhesion to an outer face. Sellis et al. teach the adhesive extends along an inner face of the cantilevered second end and the inner face being configured for adhesion to an outer face of the foil layer when the wall is in a tubular configuration Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the foil layer extend uninterrupted circumferentially in a continuous relation about the wall in order to save on material and make the process of making it more efficient.
Regarding claim 11, Sellis 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. Sellis 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.
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, Marchisio et al. teach aluminum 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 aluminum foil of Marchisio et al. in Damm et al. and/or Sellis et al. since it is cost effective and provides good EMI shielding.
Regarding claims 14-15, 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 shown in Fig. 1A fi Marchisio et al. The foil layer extends in an uninterrupted circumferentially continuous relation about the wall.
Regarding claim 16, Sellis 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. Sellis 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Shelton have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Shelton in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the rejection did not detail where the foil layer is taught pointing to the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5. Claim 13 and the foil was in fact detailed with citations in the reference in the previous Office Action on the top of page 3. Claim 13 was rejected with claim 1 in that rejection.
The new claim 21 and the amended limitations have been rejected above as well.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
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