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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20200028122 A).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a composite material self-wrap shielding tube 100t, comprising:
a plurality of carbon fiber bundles 10 disposed extending in a first direction;
a plurality of wire bundles 40 extending in the first direction parallel to the carbon fiber bundles and alternately disposed therewith, and composed of metal wires 41; and
a plurality of weft yarns 20 disposed extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction,
wherein the composite material self-wrap shielding tube is formed by winding, into a cylindrical shape, a braided member made by braiding the carbon fiber bundles, the wire bundles, and the weft yarns (figs. 2-3).
As to claim 2, Kim discloses that a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number wire bundles disposed is 1:n (where n is a natural number of 8 or less).
As to claim 4, Kim discloses that the carbon fiber bundle is composed of 3k strands, 6k strands, or 12k strands of carbon fiber yarn (¶0044).
As to claim 5, Kim discloses that the carbon fiber yarn configuring the carbon fiber bundle is coated with polyamide (¶0011).
As to claim 9, Kim discloses that a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number of wire bundles disposed is 1:n (where n is a natural number of 32 or less) (¶0066); and the carbon fiber bundle is configured of 3k strands of carbon fiber yarn (¶0044).
As to claim 10, Kim discloses that a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number of wire bundles disposed is 1:n (where n is a natural number of 16 or less) (¶0066); and the carbon fiber bundle is configured of 6k strands of carbon fiber yarn (¶0044).
As to claim 11, Kim discloses that a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number of wire bundles disposed is 1:n (where n is a natural number of 8 or less) (¶0066); and the carbon fiber bundle is configured of 12k strands of carbon fiber yarn (¶0044).
As to claim 18, Kim discloses a cable wrapped by the composite material self-wrap shielding tube according to claim 1 (¶0082, 0083, 0086; fig. 5)
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20200028122 A).
As to claim 3, Kim does not disclose that a total area of the wire bundle is 1 to 8 times a total area of the carbon fiber bundle.
Kim disclsoes that the wire bundle and the carbon fiber bundle can be arranged 1 to 1. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total area of the wire bundle be 1 to 8 times a total area of carbon fiber bundle since 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 (CCP A 1980).
As to claim 6, Kim does not explicitly disclose that a metal wire configuring the wire bundle is made of CCA (Copper Clad Aluminum).
Kim discloses that the metal filaments can be made of copper, aluminum, or an alloy material of copper, aluminum or a metal plated with copper or aluminum (¶0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wire bundle of Kim be made of CCA since 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.
As to claim 7, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the metal wire configuring the wire bundle is formed of a mixed material of silicon (Si), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), magnesium (Mg), chromium (Cr), and zinc (Zn) with aluminum (Al).
Kim discloses that the metal filaments can be made of copper, aluminum, or an alloy material of copper, aluminum or a metal plated with copper or aluminum (¶0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wire bundle of Kim be formed of a mixed material of silicon (Si), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), magnesium (Mg), chromium (Cr), and zinc (Zn) with aluminum (Al) since 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20200028122 A) in view of Gladfelter (Patent No. US 4,684,762).
As to claim 8, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the composite material self-wrap shielding tube has a shielding ratio (dB) of 40 dB or more under a signal condition of 100 MHz.
Gladfelter discloses a shielding fabric having a shielding ratio (dB) of 40 dB or more under a signal condition of 100 MHz (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shielding tube of Kim have a shielding ratio (dB) of 40 dB or more under a signal condition of 100 MHz as similarly taught by Gladfelter in order to provide effective shielding for 100MHz applications.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20200028122 A) in view of Laurent et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0262476).
As to claim 12, Kim does not disclose that when the braided member is wound into a cylindrical shape, an overlapping portion is formed where ends of the braided member overlap in a circumferential direction of the cylindrically wound braided member.
Laurent discloses that when the braided member is wound into a cylindrical shape, an overlapping portion is formed where ends of the braided member overlap in a circumferential direction of the cylindrically wound braided member (fig. 1; ¶0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the braided member of Kim have an overlapping portion as similarly taught by Laurent in order to fully enclose the shield in a tubular shape around a cable.
As to claim 13, Kim does not disclose that the overlapping portion comprises: a first overlapping portion formed at a first end; and a second overlapping portion formed at a second end opposite the first end.
Laurent discloses that the overlapping portion comprises: a first overlapping portion formed at a first end; and a second overlapping portion formed at a second end opposite the first end (fig. 1, see ends 26 and 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the braided member of Kim have a first and second overlapping portion as similarly taught by Laurent in order to fully enclose the shield in a tubular shape around a cable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claims 1, 12, and 13, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein areas of the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion each are 1/8 to 1/3 of an area of the braided member in the second direction. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding dependent claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claims 1, 12, and 13, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein, in the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion, a total area of the wire bundle is 1/3 to 4/5 of a total area of the carbon fiber bundle. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding dependent claim 16, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claims 1, 12, and 13, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein the braided member comprises a non-overlapping portion disposed between the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion, wherein: a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number of wire bundles disposed in the non-overlapping portion is 1 :n (where n is a natural number of 8 or less); and when the carbon fiber bundle and the wire bundle in the non-overlapping portion are repeatedly disposed m times at a ratio of 1 :n, a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number of wire bundles disposed in the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion is (n+2):n, and the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion is disposed by repeating the carbon fiber bundle and the wire bundle m/2 times at a ratio of (n+2):n. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claims 1, 12, and 13, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein the braided member comprises a non-overlapping portion disposed between the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion,wherein: a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number of wire bundles disposed in the non-overlapping portion is 1 :n (where n is a natural number of 8 or less); and when the carbon fiber bundle and the wire bundle in the non-overlapping portion are repeatedly disposed m times at a ratio of 1 :n, a ratio of the number of the carbon fiber bundles to the number of wire bundles disposed in the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion is (n+2):n, and the first overlapping portion and the second overlapping portion is disposed by repeating the carbon fiber bundle and the wire bundle m/2 times at a ratio of (n+2):n. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMOL H PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7833. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
/AMOL H PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847