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 § 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 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2022/0157493) in view of Clark (2005/0056454).
Park et al. discloses a cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a single twisted pair of conductors, wherein the single twisted pair of conductors has a pair lay length and a pair impedance, wherein the single twisted pair of conductors has a frequency ratio which is a ratio of the pair impedance to the pair lay length; and a sheath (200) encapsulating the single twisted pair of conductors, wherein the cable further comprises an insulation layer (12 or 120) at least partially covering each conductor of the at least one twisted pair of conductors (re-claim 1).
Park et al. does not disclose the frequency ratio between 4.77-7.0 and the insulation layer having at least one solid insulation layer and a foam insulation layer (re-claim 1).
Clark discloses a cable comprising a twisted pair of conductors, wherein the twisted pair of conductors has a frequency ratio between 4.77-7.0 (Table 1, Pair 2, 100 Ω / 18.9 mm or 0.744 in. = 5.29).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the single twisted pair of conductors of Park et al. with the frequency ratio taught by Clark to meet the specific use of the resulting cable. It is noted that since the modified cable of Park et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the cable can operate between 0.1 MHz to 20 MHz.
Although not disclosed by Park et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the insulation layer of Park et al. to have at least one solid insulation layer and a foam insulation layer (foam/skin) to meet the required mechanical/electrical properties of the cable since an insulation having a foam/skin structure surrounding a conductor is well-known in the art.
Re-claim 8, Park et al. discloses the insulation layer (12 or 120) having at least one layer of polyolefin ([0046]).
Re-claims 9-11, Park et al. discloses the cable further comprising a first metal layer (310) at least partially covering the twisted pair of conductors; and a second metal layer (320) at least partially covering the first metal layer, wherein the second metal layer does not fully cover the first metal layer (i.e., the second metal layer is a braid layer).
Re-claim 12, park et al. discloses the single twisted pair of conductors being twisted.
Re-claim 13, it is known by one ordinary skill in the art that twisting a pair of conductors would shorten the (actual) length of the conductors. Accordingly, in the twisted pair of conductors of Park et al., the (actual) length of each conductor is greater than the cable length. Park et al. does not disclose the length of each conductor being 105 to 115% of the cable length. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify each conductor of Park et al. such that the length of each conductor is 105 to 115% of the cable length to meet the specific use of the resulting cable. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re-claim 14, Park et al., as modified by Clark, discloses the cable having an impedance greater than 80 Ω.
Re-claim 15, Park et al., as modified by Clark, discloses the frequency ratio being greater than 4.77.
Re-claim 16, Park et al. discloses the cable being an Outer Foil Shield/Unshielded Twisted Pair cable.
Re-claim 17, Park et al. discloses the cross-sectional diameter of each conductor being 24 AWG ([0043], 0.5 mm = 24 AWG).
Re-claim 18, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a low smoke zero halogen jacket for the sheath of Park et al. to provide the cable with flame/fire retardant properties since such jacket is well-known in the art.
Re-claim 19, Park et al. discloses the pair lay length of the single twisted pair of conductors being between 8 mm to 18 mm ([0015]).
Re-claim 20, it is noted that since the single twisted pair of conductors of Park et al. has the lay length as claimed, the (actual) length of the conductors is required an increase between 5% to 15%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Clark’s generic disclosure of frequencies “below 100 MHz” does not render the specific 0.1-20 MHz range obvious under 35 USC 103; Clark provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to specifically design a cable for the ultra-low 0.1-20 MHz band; and that a broad, open-ended range in the prior art does not automatically render a much narrower range.
Examiner would disagree. Noticed that Clark is relied upon only to support the position of providing a specific frequency ratio, defined as a ratio of the pair impedance to the pair lay length, for a twisted pair. Clark is not relied upon for the frequency range as claimed. As stated in the last Office Action (OA), the fact that the modified cable of Park comprises structure and material as claimed, it can operate between 0.1-20 MHz. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Applicant argues that Park does not describe modifying the dielectric structure of the conductor insulation, nor does it recognize any problem that would require such modification. Examiner would disagree. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that modifying the insulation layer of Park to have a foam/solid structure would change radial stiffness characteristics; introduce compressibility difference between layers; alter stress distribution during bending; modify vibration response behavior; and introduce material interfaces that may affect long-term fatigue performance. However, applicant has not provided any evidence to support such arguments.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not provide an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning explaining how the proposed modification would preserve Park’s intended purpose. Examiner would disagree because the rejection does provide a reason for modifying the insulation layer of Park to comprise a foam/skin structure, see the rejection above. It has been held that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, an insulation layer formed of at least one solid insulation layer and a foam insulation layer is well-known in the art, see: US 9412498, col. 4 lines 13-14, “insulation 3 made of a foam skin polyolefin as is common in the art”; US 6787694, col. 6 lines 46-47, “foam-skin insulation design is well known”; and US 4711811, col. 1 lines 55-58, “the foam provides good electrical properties (i.e., low dielectric constant) and the unfoamed or skin provides good mechanical properties.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
5. 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
Prosecution Insights