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.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupotic et al (Pat Num 7,790,981, herein referred to as Vaupotic) in view of Gundel (Pub Num 2012/0298395), Gottfield et al (Pat Num 7,939,764, herein referred to as Gottfield), and Jachimowicz (Pat Num 3,272,912). Vaupotic discloses a shielded electrical cable (Figs 1-8) that achieves low insertion loss performance (Col 1, lines 5-9). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Vaupotic discloses a shielded electrical cable (400) comprising a plurality of separate individual conductor sets (410, 410, 410), wherein each conductor set (410, 410, 410) extending along a length of the cable (400) and comprising two or more insulated conductors (412, 412, 412), at least one uninsulated drain grounding wire (414) and an electrically conductive shielding film (416, 416, 416) disposed on opposite corresponding first and second sides (top and bottom) of the conductor set (412, 412, 412), wherein the electrically conductive shielding films (416) of each conductor set (410) of the plurality of separate individual conductive sets (410, 410, 410) is separate from and not in contact with the electrically conductive shielding film (416) of any other conductor set (410) of the plurality of separate individual conductive sets (410, 410, 410, i.e. each shielding layer 416 of each set 410 is surrounded by a tape layer 418 thereby isolating each shielding layer 416) and an electrically conductive multilayer third shielding film (426) that is wrapped at least once around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets (410, 410, 410) along the length of the cable (400) and comprising a conductive foil layer (Col 4, lines 60-63) surrounded by a braided sleeve surrounding the conductive foil layer (Col 4, lines 60-63), wherein the third shielding film (426) does not contact any portion of the plurality of separate individual conductor sets (410, 410, 410) along the length of the cable (400, i.e. the conductor sets are surrounded by a layer 424 prior to being surrounded with the shielding layer (426, Fig 4). With respect to claim 2, Vaupotic discloses that each conductor set (410, 410, 410) comprises two insulated conductors (412, 412) and an uninsulated grounding wire (414, Fig 4). With respect to claim 3, Vaupotic discloses that the plurality of separate individual sets (410, 410, 410) comprises at least three conductor sets (412, 412, 412). With respect to claim 8, Vaupotic discloses that the shielding film layer (416) may be copper or aluminum (i.e. Col 4, lines 12-15, both teach Al & Cu). With respect to claim 10, Vaupotic discloses that the shielding film layer (416) surrounds each conductor set (410, 410, 410) by encompassing at least 70% of a periphery of the conductor set (410, 410, 410, i.e. 100%, Fig 4). With respect to claims 11-14, Vaupotic discloses that the shielded electrical cable (400) has an round/circular/oval/elliptical cross section (Fig 4). With respect to claim 15, Vaupotic discloses that two or more insulated conductors (412, 412, 412) comprise a central conductor (110) surrounded by a dielectric material (112, as shown in Fig 1). With respect to claim 16, Vaupotic discloses that the dielectric material (112) may be made of polyolefins (polyethylene, polypropylene) and/or fluoropolymers (i.e. ETFE, FEP, PTFE, PFA, etc., Col 3, lines 55-62).
While Vaupotic discloses each of the conductor sets (410, 410, 410) being surrounded by a shielding layer (416, 416, 416), and an overall third shielding layer (426), Vaupotic doesn’t necessarily disclose the shielding layer comprising an electrically conductive first and second shielding films disposed on opposite corresponding first and second sides of the conductor set, the first and second shielding films including cover portions and pinched portions arranged such that, in a transverse cross-section, the cover portions of the first and second shielding films in combination substantially surround the conductor set, and the pinched portions of the first and second shielding films in combination form pinched portions of the conductor set on each side of the conductor set, each pinched portion comprising an edge extending along the length of the cable, nor the third shielding layer comprising a polymeric substrate layer; an electrically conductive third shielding layer disposed on the substrate layer and comprising a metal foil (claim 1), nor each conductor set comprising two uninsulated drain grounding wires disposed on opposite lateral sides of the two insulated conductors (claim 2), nor the plurality of separate individual conductor sets comprises at least four conductor sets (claim 3), nor the shielded electrical cable, wherein a wire diameter of each of the insulated conductors of each of the conductor sets is between AWG 26 and AWG 30 (claim 4), nor the nominal characteristic impedance being in the range of between about 40-60 ohms (claim 6), nor the edges of each of the conductor sets being not sealed (claim 9).
Gundel teaches a shielded electrical cable (Fig 1) that can be mass terminated and provides high speed electrical properties (Paragraph 2). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Gundel teaches a shielded electrical cable (2) comprising a plurality of separate individual conductor sets (4, 4, 4, 4), each conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4) extending along a length of the cable (2) and comprising two or more insulated conductors (6, 6, 6, 6), at least one uninsulated drain grounding wire (12, 12) and electrically conductive first and second shielding films (top and bottom 8) disposed on opposite corresponding first and second sides (top and bottom) of the conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4), wherein the first and second shielding films (top and bottom 8) includes cover portions (7) and pinched portions (9) arranged such that, in a transverse cross-section, the cover portions (7) of the first and second shielding films (top and bottom 8) in combination substantially surround the conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4), and the pinched portions (9) of the first and second shielding films (top and bottom 8) in combination form pinched portions (9) of the conductor set on each side of the conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4, Fig 1), wherein each pinched portion (9) comprising an edge extending along the length of the cable (2, Fig 1), and an electrically conductive multilayer third shielding film (not shown) that may be wrapped at least once around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets (4, 4, 4, 4, Fig 1) along the length of the cable (2) and comprising a substrate layer (i.e. the top and bottom 8, may comprise conductive layers (708a, Fig 7a-7b) laminated to substrate layers (708b, Paragraph 73), and an electrically conductive third shielding layer disposed on the substrate layer (708b) which may be wrapped at least once around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets (4, 4, 4, 4) along the length of the cable (2, Paragraph 80). With respect to claim 2, Gundel teaches that each conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4) comprises two insulated conductors (6, 6) and two uninsulated drain grounding wires (12, 12) disposed on opposite lateral sides of the two insulated conductors (6, 6, Fig 1). With respect to 3, Gundel teaches that the plurality of separate individual conductor sets (4, 4, 4, 4) may comprises at least four conductor sets (Fig 1). With respect to claim 4, Gundel teaches that the wire diameter of each of the insulated conductors (6, 6) of each of the conductor sets (4, 4, 4, 4) may be between AWG 26 and AWG 30 (Paragraph 6). With respect to claim 6, Gundel teaches that each of the insulated conductors (6, 6) of each of the conductor sets (4, 4, 4, 4) has a nominal characteristic impedance in a range of between about 40 and about 60 ohms (Paragraph 104). With respect to claim 9, Gundel teaches that the edges (located adjacent 12) of each of the conductor sets (4, 4, 4, 4) may be not sealed (i.e. the bonding adhesive layer is optional, Paragraph 51). With respect to claim 10, Gundel discloses that the cover portions (7) of the first and second shielding films (top and bottom 8) of each conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4) in combination substantially surround the conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4) by encompassing at least 70% of a periphery of the conductor set (4, 4, 4, 4, Paragraph 45).
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 shielded electrical cable of Vaupotic to comprise the conductor configuration as taught by Gundel because Gundel teaches that such a configuration provides a shielded electrical cable (Fig 1) that can be mass terminated and provides high speed electrical properties (Paragraph 2).
Vaupotic also doesn’t necessarily disclose the electrically conductive third shielding film being an electrically conductive multilayer third shielding film comprising an intumescent layer disposed on the substrate layer or electrically conductive third shielding layer and comprising an intumescent material and an electrically insulative braided sleeve disposed on the multilayer third shielding film along the length of the cable (claim 1), nor the third shielding film being helically wrapped around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets along the length of the cable (claim 18), nor the third shielding film is helically and overlappingly wrapped around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets along the length of the cable (claim 19), nor the third shielding film is longitudinally wrapped around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets so that opposing longitudinal edges of the third shielding film overlap to form an overlap seam along the length of the cable (claim 20).
Gotfried teaches a cable wrap system (Figs 1-4) for the protection of transmission wires (abstract), which is very flexible and easy to install, very durable, resistant to abrasion, impact, water, chemicals and all environment factors that may be present in cable installations (Col 10, lines 59-64), while also reducing or eliminating fire spread and the emission of smoke or toxic products of combustion and prevents the spread of cable failure to adjacent cables during insulation breakdown due to heat or arcing, environment factors or catastrophic cable failure (Col 1, lines 5-14). Specifically, with respect to claims 1 and 18-19, Gotfried teaches a cable (100, Fig 1-4) comprising a plurality of separate conductors (12) extending along a length of the cable (100) and an multilayer third shielding film (10) wrapped at least once around the plurality of conductors (12, Col 8, lines 17-19) along the length of the cable (100), wherein the film (10) comprises a substrate layer (52), an intumescent layer (42) disposed on the substrate (52) and an electrically insulative braided sleeve (32, i.e. woven, knitted, netted polyester) helically wrapped (i.e. Fig 4 shows overlapped helically edges) and disposed on the multilayer film (52 & 42) along the length of the cable (100, Col 7, lines 30-46).
With respect to claims 1 and 18-19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify third shield layer of the shielded electrical cable of modified Vaupotic to comprise the additional multilayer film layers configuration as taught by Gotfried because Gotfried teaches that such a helically wrapped configuration provides a cable wrap system (Figs 1-4) for the protection of transmission wires (abstract), which is very flexible and easy to install, very durable, resistant to abrasion, impact, water, chemicals and all environment factors that may be present in cable installations (Col 10, lines 59-64), while also reducing or eliminating fire spread and the emission of smoke or toxic products of combustion and prevents the spread of cable failure to adjacent cables during insulation breakdown due to heat or arcing, environment factors or catastrophic cable failure (Col 1, lines 5-14).
While Vaupotic discloses each of the conductor sets (410, 410, 410) being surrounded by a longitudinally wrapped shielding layer (416, 416, 416, Col 4, lines 12-15 states that the individual shields may be configured like those of Weeks, Jr, which teaches individually longitudinally wrapped shields), and an overall third shielding layer (426), Vaupotic doesn’t necessarily disclose the third shielding layer is longitudinally wrapped thereby having the top surface of the shielding layer being disposed on both an upper surface and lower surface of the folded electrically conductive multilayer third shielded film, wherein the folded electrically conductive multilayer third shielding film defining a folded edge and an open edge, wherein the folded electrically conductive multilayer third shielding film is wrapped around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets such that the open edge does not contact any of the separate individual conductor sets along the length of the cable (claim 1), nor the third shielding film is longitudinally wrapped around the plurality of separate individual conductor sets so that opposing longitudinal edges of the third shielding film overlap to form an overlap seam along the length of the cable (claim 20).
Jachimowicz teaches a sheathed electrical cables (Figs 1-7B) comprising a shielding strip layer folded in a variety of known folded configurations about the cable core, wherein the shielding strip layer maintains its shape even after the extrusion of the cable jacket (Col 1, lines 34-36). Specifically, with respect to claims 1 & 20, Jachimowicz teaches a shielded electrical cable (Figs 4 & 5B) comprising an individual conductor set (10), wherein the conductor set (10) extending along a length of the cable (Fig 4) and comprising two or more insulated conductors (Fig 4), an electrically conductive first shielding film (not numbered, located adjacent 10) disposed outside and surrounding the conductor set (10), and wherein an overall shielding film (26, 22, 24) is wrapped at least once around the conductor set (10) and comprising a polymeric substrate layer (26), an electrically conductive overall shield layer (22), and an polymeric layer (24) outward the electrical conductive shield layer (22), wherein the overall shielding film (26, 22, 24) may be longitudinally wrapped (located at 20) at least once around the conductor set (10) along the length of the cable (Fig 4), wherein the top surface (24) of the shielding layer (26, 22, 24) being disposed on both an upper surface and lower surface of the folded electrically conductive multilayer overall shielded film (26, 22, 24), wherein the folded electrically conductive multilayer overall shielding film (26, 22, 24) may define a folded edge (inner edge as shown in Fig 5B) and an open edge (top edge as shown in Fig 5B), wherein the folded electrically conductive multilayer overall shielding film (26, 22, 24) is longitudinally wrapped around the plurality of separate conductor set (10) such that the open edge (top edge) does not contact any of the separate individual conductor set (10) along the length of the cable (Figs 4 & 5b).
With respect to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the overall shielding film layer of modified Vaupotic to be longitudinally wrapped with overlapped edges forming an folded edge and an open edge as taught by Jachimowicz because Jachimowicz teaches a variety of well-known folded configurations are commonly utilized to surround cable cores, wherein the shielding strip layer maintains its shape even after the extrusion of the cable jacket (Col 1, lines 34-36) and since it is also well-known configuration in the art of cables that longitudinally wrapped shields provide 100% coverage and protection to interior conductors from NEXT and since it has been held that a change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from a prior art. In re Span-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
Vaupotic also doesn’t necessarily disclose any electrical connection between the third shielding film and the at least one uninsulated drain grounding wire of each of the conductor sets is only a capacitive connection (claim 5), nor the conductor sets have a nominal differential characteristic impedance in a range of between about 70 and about 120 ohms (claim 7), nor the average thickness of the dielectric material being between about 100 µm and about 500 µm (claim 17).
With respect to claim 5, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Vaupotic wherein the modified multilayer film layer forming any electrical connection between the third shielding film and the at least one uninsulated drain grounding wire of each of the conductor sets to be only a capacitive connection, since the applicant has not disclosed that such a modification solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears that modified Vaupotic would perform equally well with the modification.
With respect to claims 7 & 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the conductor sets of modified Vaupotic to comprise the conductor sets have a nominal differential characteristic impedance in a range of between about 70 and about 120 ohms and the average thickness of the dielectric material being between about 100 µm and about 500 µm, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 shielded electrical cables comprising overall longitudinally wrapped overall shielding.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights