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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action, mailed on August 12, 2025, is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. Please find the corrected Non-Final Rejection that follows below. The examiner apologizes for any inconvenience this action may have caused.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 7, 2025. These drawings are approved.
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 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liptak et al (Pub Num 2014/0262424, herein referred to as Liptak) in view of Grant et al (Pub Num 2011/0315419, herein referred to as Grant) and Matsuda et al (Pub Num 2016/0155540, herein referred to as Matsuda). Liptak discloses a duplex twisted shielded cable (Figs 1-6) that transmits digital electrical signals having a data transfer rate of 5 GB or higher (Paragraph 1). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Liptak discloses a duplex twisted shielded cable (100, Fig 1a-2) comprising two insulated wires (102, 104) that are twisted together (Paragraph 22), wherein each has a conductor (106) and an insulator (108) covering the conductor (106), a belt layer (112) surrounding the two insulated wires (102, 104), a metal foil shield (116) wound longitudinally on the belt layer (112), such that parts of the metal foil shield (116) overlap each other (Paragraph 27), a metal braid (124) provided on an outer periphery of the metal foil shield (116) and a sheath (126) provided on an outer periphery of the metal braid (116). With respect to claim 3, Liptak discloses a wire harness (Fig 1) comprising the duplex twisted shielded cable (100) comprising two insulated wires (102, 104) that are twisted together (Paragraph 22), wherein each has a conductor (106) and an insulator (108) covering the conductor (106), a belt layer (112) surrounding the two insulated wires (102, 104), a metal foil shield (116) wound longitudinally on the belt layer (112), such that parts of the metal foil shield (116) overlap each other (Paragraph 27), a metal braid (124) provided on an outer periphery of the metal foil shield (116) and a sheath (126) provided on an outer periphery of the metal braid (116) and another member (120) adjacent to the duplex twisted shielded cable (100, Fig 3).
While Liptak discloses a layer (112) surrounding the twisted pair of conductors (102, 104) and a metal foil shield (116) surrounding the layer (112), Liptak doesn’t necessarily disclose the layer being a film layer wound spirally on the two insulated wires such that parts of the film overlap each other, nor the metallic foil shield being spirally wrapped around the film layer, wherein the film and the metal foil shield are provided as a separate members (claim 1).
Grant teaches a twisted shielded cable (Figs 1-7) that reduces electromagnetic interference leakage both into and out from the cable (Paragraph 5), while also sealing the twisted pairs (Paragraph 20). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Grant teaches a twisted shielded cable (Figs 1-7) comprising two insulated wires (110, 112) that are twisted together (Paragraph 18), wherein each has a conductor (110, 112) and an insulator (114) covering the conductor (110, 112), a film layer (116) wound spirally on the two insulated wires (110, 112) such that parts of the film overlap each other (Paragraph 20, Fig 1), a metal foil shield (120) wound spirally on the film (116) such that parts of the metal foil shield (120) overlap each other (Paragraph 25, Fig 1), and a sheath (126) provided on an outer periphery of the metal foil shield (120), wherein the film (116) and the metal foil shield (120) are provided as a separate member (Fig 1).
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 duplex twisted shielded cable of Liptak to comprise the film layer configuration as taught by Grant because Grant teaches that such a configuration provides a duplex twisted shielded cable that reduces electromagnetic interference leakage both into and out from the cable (Paragraph 5), while also sealing the twisted pairs (Paragraph 20).
Modified Liptak also doesn’t necessarily disclose the film layer having a thickness of 6-20 μm (claim 1).
Matsuda teaches a twisted shielded cable (Figs 1A-1B) that prevents sharp signal attenuation, easy to bend and handle, and is flexible (abstract), while also improving transmission characteristics (Paragraph 73). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Matsuda teaches a twisted shielded cable (Figs 1A & 1B) comprising two insulated wires (3, 3), which may be twisted together (Paragraph 263), wherein each has a conductor (1, 1) and an insulator (2, 2) covering the conductor (1, 1), a film layer (resin layer of 5) is wound spirally on the two insulated wires (3, 3), a metal foil shield (metallic layer of 6) is wound spirally on the film (resin layer of 5) such that parts of the metal foil shield (metallic layer of 6) overlap each other (Paragraph 28), and a sheath (7) provided on an outer periphery of the metal foil shield (metallic layer of 6), wherein the film (resin layer of 5) may have a thickness of 6-20 μm (i.e. PET layer of 5 may be 3 μm or more, Paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the duplex twisted shielded cable of Liptak to comprise the film layer having a thickness of 6-20 μm, as taught by Matsuda because Matsuda teaches that a resin film layer thickness configuration provides a twisted shielded cable (Figs 1A-1B) that prevents sharp signal attenuation, easy to bend and handle, and is flexible (abstract), while also improving transmission characteristics (Paragraph 73) and 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 & 3 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
Based on the newly submitted and corrected rejection, this is a Non-Final Rejection.
.
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
November 11, 2025