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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamichi et al (JP Pat Num 2018-073741A, herein referred to as Masamichi) in view of Hitoshi et al (JP Pat Num 2004-014337A, herein referred to as Hitoshi). Masamichi discloses a multicore cable (Fig 1), for usage in medical devices such as ultrasound endoscopes (Paragraph 4), and which is excellent in elasticity and flexibility (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Masamichi discloses a multicore cable (1, Fig 1) comprising a plurality of insulated electric wires (10), excluding coaxial cables (Fig 1), wherein each insulated electrical wire (10) comprises a metal conductor wire (11) and an insulating layer (12) covering the metal conductor wire (11), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (10) may be twisted together (Paragraph 13), wherein the plurality of insulated electrical wires (10) are twisted such that a specific insulated electrical wire (10) are not always present at the center portion or an outer peripheral portion (i.e. conductor wire are twisted to form bundle 11 (Paragraph 15) and then several bundles 11 are twisted to form the cable thereby the wires are constantly moving from outside to inside as both are being twisted, Paragraph 13 & 15). With respect to claim 2, Masamichi discloses a multicore cable (1), wherein, in the plurality of insulated electric wires (10), the metal conductor wire (11) may be a stranded wire with a circular cross-section (Fig 1), and the insulating layer (12) comprises a thermoplastic resin (i.e. FEP, ETFE, PE, PP, EVA, PVC, Paragraph 16). With respect to claim 3, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), wherein, in the plurality of insulated electric wires (10), the metal conductor wire (11) has a conductor diameter of 0.010 mm or more and 0.085 mm or less (0.051-0.079 mm, Paragraph 15). With respect to claim 6, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (10) are twisted together in a number of eight or more (Fig 1). With respect to claim 8, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (10) are signal wires for transmitting electrical signals (Paragraph 4). With respect to claim 9, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), further comprising a sheath (20) that collectively covers the plurality of insulated electric wires (10). With respect to claim 12, Masamichi discloses a multicore cable (1, Fig 1) comprising a plurality of insulated electric wires (10), excluding coaxial cables (Fig 1), wherein each insulated electrical wire (10) comprises a metal conductor wire (11) and an insulating layer (12) covering the metal conductor wire (11), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (10) may be twisted together (Paragraph 13). With respect to claim 13, Masamichi discloses a multicore cable (1), wherein, in the plurality of insulated electric wires (10), the metal conductor wire (11) may be a stranded wire with a circular cross-section (Fig 1), and the insulating layer (12) comprises a thermoplastic resin (i.e. FEP, ETFE, PE, PP, EVA, PVC, Paragraph 16). With respect to claim 14, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), wherein, in the plurality of insulated electric wires (10), the metal conductor wire (11) has a conductor diameter of 0.010 mm or more and 0.085 mm or less (0.051-0.079 mm, Paragraph 15). With respect to claim 17, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (10) are twisted together in a number of eight or more (Fig 1). With respect to claim 19, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (10) are signal wires for transmitting electrical signals (Paragraph 4). With respect to claims 20-21, Masamichi discloses that the multicore cable (1), further comprising a sheath (20) that collectively covers the plurality of insulated electric wires (10), wherein the sheath (20) comprises a covering layer (22) that is an outermost layer (Fig 1). With respect to claim 23, Masamichi discloses that the plurality of insulated electrical wires (10) are collectively covered by the covering layer (22, Fig 1).
However, Masamichi doesn’t necessarily disclose each of the plurality of insulated electric wires being plastically stretched in a longitudinal direction at an elongation rate of 0.5% or more and 10.0% or less (claims 1 & 12), nor the conductor being a single wire nor the insulator being a thermosetting resin (claims 2 & 13), nor the multicore cable, wherein physical properties of the metal conductor are a tensile strength of 200-700MPa and an elongation at break of 25% or more (claims 7 & 18), nor the plurality of insulated electric wires extending from the sheath at a cable end (claims 9, 20, & 21), nor the insulated wires being enamel wires (claim 22).
Hitoshi teaches a multicore cable (Figs 1-4) for usage with a medical device (Paragraph 2) and is capable of preventing an electrical short circuit, allows easy cable connection at a low cost, and has excellent flexibility (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claims 1 & 11, Hitoshi teaches a multicore cable (12, Fig 1) comprising a plurality of insulated electric wires (2), each comprising a metal conductor wire (3) and an insulating layer (4) covering the metal conductor wire (3), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (2) are twisted together (Paragraph 27), wherein each of the plurality of insulated electric wires (2) is plastically stretched in a longitudinal direction at an elongation rate of 0.5% or more and 10.0% or less (Paragraph 10), wherein the plurality of insulated electrical wires (2) are twisted such that a specific insulated electrical wire (2) are not always present at the center portion or an outer peripheral portion (i.e. 18 coaxial wires 2 are twisted to form bundle 12 and then seven bundles 12 are twisted, thereby the wires are constantly moving from outside to inside as both are being twisted, Paragraph 27-29). With respect to claims 2, 13, & 22, Hitoshi teaches a multicore cable (12), wherein, in the plurality of insulated electric wires (2), the metal conductor wire (3) is a single wire with a circular cross-section (Fig 2), and the insulating layer (4) comprises a thermosetting resin (i.e. enamel material, polyimide, Paragraph 21). With respect to claims 7 & 18, Hitoshi teaches that the multicore cable (12), wherein physical properties of the metal conductor wire (3) are a tensile strength of 200 MPa or more (Paragraph 10) and an elongation at break of 25% or more (Paragraph 10). With respect to claims 9, 20, & 21, Hitoshi teaches that the multicore cable (12), further comprising a sheath (14) that collectively covers the plurality of insulated electric wires (2), and the plurality of insulated electric wires (2) may extend from the sheath (14) at a cable end (i.e. terminal processability requires removing outer jacket to access the inner conductors, Paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the multicore cable of Masamichi to comprise the conductor configuration as taught by Hitoshi because Hitoshi teaches that such a configuration provides a multicore cable (Figs 1-4) for usage with a medical device (Paragraph 2) and is capable of preventing an electrical short circuit, allows easy cable connection at a low cost, and has excellent flexibility (abstract).
Masamichi also doesn’t necessarily disclose the plurality of insulated electric wires have a space factor of 70% or more (claims 4 & 15), nor the plurality of insulated electric wires have a twist rate of 0.5% or more and 5.0% or less (claims 5 & 16), nor the physical properties of the metal conductor wire having a tensile strength of less than 700MPa (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the multicore cable of Masamichi to comprise the plurality of insulated electric wires have a space factor of 70% or more, the plurality of insulated electric wires have a twist rate of 0.5% or more and 5.0% or less, and the physical properties of the metal conductor wire having a tensile strength of less than 700MPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masamichi (JP Pat Num 2018-073741A) in view of Hitoshi (JP Pat Num 2004-014337A), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Masamichi), further in view of Huang et al (WO2017/017778A1, herein referred to as Huang). Masamichi discloses a multicore cable (Fig 1), for usage in medical devices such as ultrasound endoscopes (Paragraph 4), and which is excellent in elasticity and flexibility (abstract), as disclosed above with respect to claim 1.
While modified Masamichi states that the cable may be terminated to electronic devices, such as medical devices (Paragraph 4), modified Masamichi doesn’t specifically disclose the cable comprising a terminal member to which the plurality of insulated electric wires are connected at an end of the multicore cable (claim 10), nor the cable further comprising: a binder tape wound around the plurality of insulated electric wires; a shield conductor arranged around an outer periphery of the binder tape; and a sheath arranged around an outer periphery of the shield conductor, the sheath being a covering layer that is an outermost layer (claim 24).
Huang teaches a multicore cable (Figs 1 & 3-5) that comprises an plurality of insulated electrical wires are commonly terminated to terminal devices and they do not easily become tangled (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 10, Huang teaches a multi-core cable assembly (10, Fig 1) comprising multicore cable (Fig 1) comprising a plurality of insulated electric wires (13), each comprising a metal conductor wire (not numbered) and an insulating layer (not numbered) covering the metal conductor wire (not numbered), wherein the plurality of insulated electric wires (13) are twisted together (Page 3, lines 121-132), wherein the cable (10) comprising a terminal member (51) to which the plurality of insulated electric wires (13) are connected at an end of the multicore cable (10, Fig 5). With respect to claim 24, Huang teaches that the cable (10) further comprises a binder tape (14) wound around the plurality of insulated electric wires (13), a shield conductor (15) arranged around an outer periphery of the binder tape (14), and a sheath (16) arranged around an outer periphery of the shield conductor (15), wherein the sheath (16) is a covering layer that is an outermost layer (Figs 1, Page 2, lines 72-79).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the multi-core cable of modified Masamichi to be connected to a terminal member configuration as taught by Huang because Huang teaches that such a configuration provides a multicore cable (Figs 1 & 3-5) that comprises an plurality of insulated electrical wires are commonly terminated to terminal devices and they do not easily become tangled (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various multicore cables.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights