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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant believes that Species I and II refer to the same invention. This is not found persuasive because Species I requires that at least one of the inner surfaces of the two insulation layers is modified to comprise a modified surface layer possessing adhesibility. This is not required by Species II which requires that at least one of the outer surfaces of the two insulation layers is modified to comprise a modified surface layer possessing adhesibility.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-30 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/15/2026.
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 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 contains the limitation that requires that “at least one of the inner surfaces of the two insulation layers is modified to comprise a modified surface layer possessing adhesibility”. However, in the Applicant’s specification as filed, there is no explanation of what exactly “modified” actually entails in order to impart adhesibility to the surface layer. No modification process is described and the specification only states that the insulation layer is modified to be more adhesible.
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 1-8 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (Japanese Patent # JP6954513) in view of Birnbrich et al. (US Patent # 6,326,427).
Regarding Claim 1, Kojima discloses a flexible flat cable (i.e. shielded flat cable 100/200/300/400) with no secondary processing adhesives, comprising:
a plurality of parallel arranged conductors (i.e. signal lines 120/320 & ground lines 110/310);
two insulation layers (i.e. first insulating layer 131 & second insulating layer 132), having respective inner surfaces (i.e. first surface 101) oppositely positioned to be adhered to sandwich the plurality of parallel arranged conductors;
two shielding layers (i.e. first shield layer 141 & second shield layer 142), respectively adhered on respective outer surfaces (i.e. second surface 131A & second surface 132A, respectively) of the two insulation layers, wherein at least one of the inner surfaces of the two insulation layers comprises a surface layer possessing adhesibility (i.e. insulating layers 131/132 are resin layers which can have adhesive properties, making an adhesive layer unnecessary) (Fig. 2-5; Paragraphs 0021-0055).
Kojima does not explicitly disclose that the inner surfaces of the two insulation layers are modified to comprise the modified surface layer.
Birnbrich teaches surfaces of insulation layers are modified to comprise the modified surface layer possessing adhesibility (Abstract; Column 1, line 10-35; Column 2, line 28- Column 3, line 41; Column 3, line 56-64; Column 4, line 63- Column 5, line 30; Column 6, line 1-31; Column 7, line 22- Column 8, line 8, Column 8, line 63- Column 9, line 7).
Birnbrich teaches that is well known in the art to use polypropylene as an insulating material that is modified to improve its adhesibility or compatibility with a coating such as metal or another insulating material. Kojima states that the insulating layers are resin layers and list examples of resins that can be used, but does not strictly limit and states that the resin can have adhesive properties. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the surfaces of insulation layers to comprise a modified surface layer possessing adhesibility in Kojima, as taught by Birnbrich, in order to permanently improve its adhesibility or compatibility with a coating such as metal or another insulating material
Regarding Claim 2, Kojima discloses that the parallel arranged conductors are flat conductors (Fig. 2-3; Paragraphs 0026 & 0055).
Regarding Claim 3, Kojima discloses that the parallel arranged conductors are round conductors (Fig.4-5; Paragraphs 0043 & 0055).
Regarding Claim 4, Kojima does not explicitly disclose that the two insulation layers are polypropylene (PP) layers.
Birnbrich teaches that the two insulation layers are polypropylene (PP) layers (Abstract; Column 7, line 26- Column 8, line 8, Column 8, line 63- Column 9, line 7).
Birnbrich teaches that is well known in the art to use polypropylene as an insulating material that is modified to improve its adhesibility or compatibility with a coating such as metal or another insulating material. Kojima states that the insulating layers are resin layers and list examples of resins that can be used, but does not strictly limit and states that the resin can have adhesive properties. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use polypropylene as the insulating material in the insulation layers of Kojima, as taught by Birnbrich, since it is a material that can have adhesive properties. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 5, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the modified surface layer is equal to or larger than a thickness of the parallel arranged conductors.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a thickness of the modified surface layer equal to or larger than a thickness of the parallel arranged conductors, 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). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to make such a modification since the insulation layers must adhere to the surfaces of the conductors.
Regarding Claim 6, Kojima in view of Birnbrich discloses that both the inner surfaces of the two insulation layers are modified to be the modified surface layers to possess adhesibility (Abstract; Column 1, line 10-35; Column 2, line 28-39, Column 3, line 1-41; Column 3, line 56-64; Column 4, line 63- Column 5, line 30; Column 6, line 1-31; Column 7, line 22- Column 8, line 8, Column 8, line 63- Column 9, line 7). Birnbrich shows that surfaces of a polypropylene material are subjected to both mechanical and chemical and/or physical surface treatments which may be combined with coating or adhesive compatibility modifications which ensures that coatings or adhesives are able permanently to adhere to the propylene material without any additional pretreatment.
Regarding Claim 7, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the modified surface layers is equal to or larger than a half of a thickness of the parallel arranged conductors.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a thickness of the modified surface layers equal to or larger than a half of a thickness of the parallel arranged conductors, 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). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to make such a modification since the insulation layers must adhere to the surfaces of the conductors.
Regarding Claim 8, Kojima discloses that the shielding layers (i.e. first shield layer 141 & second shield layer 142) are aluminum foil layers or copper foils (Paragraphs 0033).
Regarding Claim 15, Kojima in view of BIrnbrich discloses that a melting point of the modified surface layer is lower than a melting point of the two insulation layers (Column 1, line 10-35; Column 2, line 28-39, Column 3, line 1-41; Column 7, line 22-25; Column 8, line 63- Column 9, line 7). Birnbrich shows that surfaces of a polypropylene material are subjected to both mechanical and chemical and/or physical surface treatments which may be combined with coating or adhesive compatibility modifications which ensures that coatings or adhesives are able permanently to adhere to the propylene material without any additional pretreatment.
Regarding Claim 16, Kojima discloses that a thickness of the insulation layers is in a range of 0.03 mm to 0.3 mm (i.e. 9 μm (0.009 mm) or more and 100 μm (0.1 mm) or less) (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 17, Kojima does not explicitly disclose that the two insulation layers are polyolefin layers.
Birnbrich teaches that the two insulation layers are polyolefin layers (Abstract; Column 7, line 26- Column 8, line 8, Column 8, line 63- Column 9, line 7).
Birnbrich teaches that is well known in the art to use polyolefin as an insulating material that is modified to improve its adhesibility or compatibility with a coating such as metal or another insulating material. Kojima states that the insulating layers are resin layers and list examples of resins that can be used, but does not strictly limit and states that the resin can have adhesive properties. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use polyolefin as the insulating material in the insulation layers of Kojima, as taught by Birnbrich, since it is a material that can have adhesive properties. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (Japanese Patent # JP6954513) in view of Birnbrich et al. (US Patent # 6,326,427), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gundel et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2012/0285723).
Regarding Claim 9, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than -15dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 35GHz.
However, as per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F.Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.). Therefore, since the apparatus/product of Kojima in view of Birnbrich is identical or substantially identical in structure or composition then the claimed properties are presumed to be expected and/or inherent.
Alternatively, Gundel teaches that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than -15dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 35GHz (Paragraph 0531-0532). Gundel teaches a similar cable structure to the one taught by Kojima in view of Birnbrich in which the claimed insertion loss is achieved and is therefore possible with the cable structure of Kojima in view of Birnbrich. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the cable of Kojima in view of Birnbrich would possess an insertion loss smaller than -15dB as a tested frequency is lower than 35GHz, as taught by Gundel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 10, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than - 10dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 35GHz.
However, as per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F.Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.). Therefore, since the apparatus/product of Kojima in view of Birnbrich is identical or substantially identical in structure or composition then the claimed properties are presumed to be expected and/or inherent.
Alternatively, Gundel teaches that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than -10dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 35GHz (Paragraph 0531-0532). Gundel teaches a similar cable structure to the one taught by Kojima in view of Birnbrich in which the claimed insertion loss is achieved and is therefore possible with the cable structure of Kojima in view of Birnbrich. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the cable of Kojima in view of Birnbrich would possess an insertion loss smaller than -10dB as a tested frequency is lower than 35GHz, as taught by Gundel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 11, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than -25dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 40GHz.
However, as per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F.Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.). Therefore, since the apparatus/product of Kojima in view of Birnbrich is identical or substantially identical in structure or composition then the claimed properties are presumed to be expected and/or inherent.
Alternatively, Gundel teaches that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than -25dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 40GHz (Paragraph 0531-0532). Gundel teaches a similar cable structure to the one taught by Kojima in view of Birnbrich in which the claimed insertion loss is achieved and is therefore possible with the cable structure of Kojima in view of Birnbrich. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the cable of Kojima in view of Birnbrich would possess an insertion loss smaller than -25dB as a tested frequency is lower than 40GHz, as taught by Gundel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 12, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than -10dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 40GHz.
However, as per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F.Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.). Therefore, since the apparatus/product of Kojima in view of Birnbrich is identical or substantially identical in structure or composition then the claimed properties are presumed to be expected and/or inherent.
Alternatively, Gundel teaches that an insertion loss of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is smaller than -10dB as a tested frequency of the flexible flat cable with no secondary processing adhesives is lower than 40GHz (Paragraph 0531-0532). Gundel teaches a similar cable structure to the one taught by Kojima in view of Birnbrich in which the claimed insertion loss is achieved and is therefore possible with the cable structure of Kojima in view of Birnbrich. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the cable of Kojima in view of Birnbrich would possess an insertion loss smaller than -10dB as a tested frequency is lower than 40GHz, as taught by Gundel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 13, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that surfaces of the parallel arranged conductors are formed with tin before the parallel arranged conductors are sandwiched by the two insulation layers.
Gundel teaches that surfaces of the parallel arranged conductors (i.e. conductors 6) are formed with tin (i.e. tin-plated) before the parallel arranged conductors are sandwiched by the two insulation layers (Fig. 1 & 3; Paragraphs 0135, 0137, 0163, 0304, 0315, 0329, 0358, 0531, 0532).
Gundel teaches that it is well-known in the art of shield flat cables to form the parallel arranged conductors with tin before insulating them and it is known in the art that tin plating improves corrosion resistance & solderability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to perform tin plating on the conductors of Kojima in view of Birnbrich, as taught by Gundel, in order to improve the corrosion resistance & solderability of said conductors. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 14, Kojima in view of Birnbrich does not explicitly disclose that surfaces of the parallel arranged conductors are formed with silver before the parallel arranged conductors are sandwiched by the two insulation layers
Gundel teaches that surfaces of the parallel arranged conductors (i.e. conductors 6) are formed with silver (i.e. silver-plated) before the parallel arranged conductors are sandwiched by the two insulation layers (Fig. 1 & 3; Paragraphs 0135, 0137, 0163, 0304, 0315, 0329, 0358, 0531, 0532).
Gundel teaches that it is well-known in the art of shield flat cables to form the parallel arranged conductors with silver before insulating them and it is known in the art that silver plating improves corrosion resistance & conductivity. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to perform silver plating on the conductors of Kojima in view of Birnbrich, as taught by Gundel, in order to improve the corrosion resistance & conductivity of said conductors. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Relevant Cited Art
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However, it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
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 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
Prosecution Insights